NTTD - Official Trailer Discussion Thread - First trailer OUT NOW (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

1121122124126127180

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,606
    Mallory wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I think it's safe to say till we get the next Bernard Lee....Bond might keep on disrespecting M. Funny thing is , Lee was never involved in any field thing...and he was still very good....maybe coz he had a sort of insouciant attitude towards Bond....Lee's M was never concern about what Bond had for Breakfast.
    He was never involved in the field but he did travel around.... YOLT, TSWLM and Moonraker spring to mind.

    Bernard Lee's M showed up in Bond's London flat, even.

    Regarding Fiennes M and based on Spectre, I don't have any reason to expect "Bond will keep disrespecting" him. That's not what was going on.

    More likely is M still venting frustrations on OO7 about outraged chefs and humiliated tailors and such.

    Yeah it find it hard to look at the restaurant scene where M says Bond is on his own or Bond showing up to Hildebrand to meet and work with M at the end of the film, and see mutual disrespect there. Bond can be cheeky and insubordinate, but that’s not the same as him having no respect for M.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,926
    The Spectre story plays out to show Bond rightfully didn't answer M's questions about Mexico. It would have put M in a true bind while the future of MI6 and the Double-O section was in question. M learned that lesson over time, Bond's usefulness. The trust thing.
    mtm wrote: »
    Has anybody on here actually had any trouble understanding a Bond film because some of its story elements come from the film before? If not then this is just all hypothetical and not actually a real concern.
    That was my immediate thought as well. Spectre wouldn't have made $880 million unless it worked as a standalone film.

    And every Bond film is that of course. Quantum of Solace, any of them.

  • edited February 2020 Posts: 2,599
    In terms of the respect issue, I should be clearer; on the whole he respects M on the inside generally but in the films he often doesn’t show it based on the things he says. This is just the type of respect I was talking about.

    Many may disagree with me but I wish there was more character development on Bond’s part. We had some of this in OHMSS and CR in the way of love and then the theme of abandonment in SF, all of which were great but I wish they’d focus on the little, quirky, finicky things that make the literary character who he is. For instance, Bond’s breakfast rituals - a boiled egg timed for three and a third minutes, whole wheat toast with Norwegian honey and Tiptree marmalade (well, the brands may need to be skipped due to product placement issues :) ). Then there’s Bond’s dislike for shoelaces. Of course they only have to be brief scenes but I feel that it’s important for them to do their best to further distinguish him from all the other action heroes out there. Bond gambling in his free time, then buying a diamond clip for his cash for example like he expressed a desire to do in the Moonraker novel. Bond at the mechanics requesting that a bigger motor be put in his car. Arguments with Felix about the merits and demerits of American and British cars... So many of this stuff is overlooked in the films which for me personally is a shame.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,022
    @antovolk @mtm @jake24 @marketto007

    TOTAL FILM febr issue. This is the only text they had and picture.

    d5E8JAI.jpg
    iYgtfV0.jpg

    Everyone: If you want the full magazine(PDF) with other stuff just give me a shout-out.
  • Posts: 2,599
    Thanks for posting. Seeing Malek is what I’m most looking forward to about this film.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,348
    antovolk wrote: »
    zebrafish wrote: »
    Sure, but even though trailers are played before the main film, the vast majority of consumers does not see them in cinemas but on social media. I would venture to guess that in terms of impact it is far less important to hook a new trailer to a film than to place it on FB, Twitter, iTunes, Instagram and so on. Large sections of the cinemagoing public may not go to see Mulan or Quiet Place 2 in the time before April. Just saying that online distribution of trailers is far more important than, say, 5 years ago.

    Of of course online is extremely important but when you're planning a campaign a year in advance and you know the trailer gonna go into cinemas, it's far easier to earmark a film it will be with in cinemas as a rough estimate for when you'd drop it online, than pluck an online date out of thin air. That's why without fail, everyone who releases films in cinemas the traditional way still plans online trailer launches around this.

    And you want to also keep momentum going and keep that footage as fresh as possible by getting it out to cinemas around the same time, paired with an appropriate release to maximise impact.

    I see, thanks for clearing that up. Along those lines another trailer is more likely than not, I guess.
  • Posts: 37
    TFC1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @mtm, arguing with you is exhausting, not because you’re wright or wrong, but because you simply enjoy debate by logic and linguistic fencing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se, sometimes its good fun, but most of the time you’re arguing against people and things that are not antagonist to your aims. Twisting is not always putting into form, sometimes its just twisting.

    No need to get personal. I don’t believe in the assertion so I’m putting the case against it. Saying that the Bond films should and have never done something which they clearly have done several times right from the start makes no sense to me: maybe it does to you. You’re welcome to explain why you think they haven’t if you believe the opposite.
    I’m not going to have a go at your character: if you want to have a go at me personally please do so over the PMs, not on the open board. I don’t believe in questioning the person, just the opinion.

    Not having a go at you at all. I enjoy reading your comments. I just think that you two were actually in agreement and we’re fighting for semantics.

    Yes, Bond films have a formula and they also are always innovative one way or another.

    Getting rid of the so called formula entirely and calling that innovation would be idiotic. That doesn’t mean innovation hasn’t been part of the films since the beginning.

    And I suppose we all can agree on that.

    And hey, if I said racing against Alain Prost was exhausting, I wouldn’t be criticising him negatively, would I. You could very well take my post as a compliment. I did say you liked to fence using logic and semantics. That is exhausting. But rarely in a bad way.

    I’m not playing some sort of game: ‘twisting’ isn’t an allegation I see as positive. Yes I use logic to make my points: I’m hardly going to apologise for that!
    I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that continuity wasn’t part of the films’ ‘formula’ right from the start in 1962?
    No, continuity barely existed back then. I saw YOLT before I ever saw the unseen Blofeld in FRWL or TB. I didn’t feel confused or felt I needed to see the previous films. Those films stood on their own. With the exception of SF, all the Craig films are heavily tied together. And even with SF they screwed the pooch after the fact by trying to jimmy it into the whole Craig Quantum/Spectre saga (i.e. it’s all connected to Bro-feld).

    True and a great illustration of the difference between the continuity of the Craig films versus the continuity of the Bond films at large. You can't take any Craig film out of context (except Skyfall) which is wholly unlike any other Bond film in the franchise.
    Come to think of it this may be one improvement over the novels that the films have done, specifically with OHMSS and YOLT. But just typing that, nothing beats the YOLT novel, what a madhouse.
    Absolutely!! Bond loses his wife in OHMSS and they don’t bring this up again until TSWLM (very briefly) and the beginning of FYEO for all of 10 seconds! If those films were done today we’d be hearing about Tracy in DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and on and on.... Bond would still be getting over her death in each film. What a depressing series of films those would have been!!

    Standalone is aways better than serialized. All these popular TV shows these days are so heavily serialized but tell me when was the last time you saw any of them being shown in reruns on your local TV channel showing reruns of older shows? Where’s the SOPRANOS? Where’s LOST? Where’s 24? Nowhere! Because these shows don’t play well in rerun format. People want to sit down and relax and catch one episode of something without having to watch the entire series! When I was growing up I was watching reruns of I LOVE LUCY, ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, HAWAII FIVE-O, MAGNUM PI, COLUMBO, THE A-TEAM, KNIGHT RIDER, etc. Those same shows I watched in reruns 20-30 years ago are still being shown in reruns today! Why? Because it’s an easy watch. Standalone plays better on repeat viewings.

    Sorry but saying The Soprano's does not stand up to repeat viewing compared to those other shows you mention means you are either having us on (hopefully) or your opinion is utter tosh and should be ignored at all costs!!

    I think he’s saying you can’t catch a random episode in the middle of Sopranos run and enjoy it out of context the same way you can catch an episode of Knight Rider and enjoy it out of context. Same applies to Breaking Bad (randomly watching S3 E8 in syndication, you wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on) yet Breaking Bad is some of the best television ever made.
    Yep, that was precisely my point!!

    Sorry to be pedantic but you specifically said "re-watch" which means you already know the context and therefore can certainly enjoy the quality of writing, acting and production on something like the Soprano's, the Wire or Breaking Bad when catching one episode. Certainly much more than watching a one programme off of dire quality.

    I am in the UK and The Soprano's is on almost constant loop here on Sky TV.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    TFC1 wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @mtm, arguing with you is exhausting, not because you’re wright or wrong, but because you simply enjoy debate by logic and linguistic fencing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se, sometimes its good fun, but most of the time you’re arguing against people and things that are not antagonist to your aims. Twisting is not always putting into form, sometimes its just twisting.

    No need to get personal. I don’t believe in the assertion so I’m putting the case against it. Saying that the Bond films should and have never done something which they clearly have done several times right from the start makes no sense to me: maybe it does to you. You’re welcome to explain why you think they haven’t if you believe the opposite.
    I’m not going to have a go at your character: if you want to have a go at me personally please do so over the PMs, not on the open board. I don’t believe in questioning the person, just the opinion.

    Not having a go at you at all. I enjoy reading your comments. I just think that you two were actually in agreement and we’re fighting for semantics.

    Yes, Bond films have a formula and they also are always innovative one way or another.

    Getting rid of the so called formula entirely and calling that innovation would be idiotic. That doesn’t mean innovation hasn’t been part of the films since the beginning.

    And I suppose we all can agree on that.

    And hey, if I said racing against Alain Prost was exhausting, I wouldn’t be criticising him negatively, would I. You could very well take my post as a compliment. I did say you liked to fence using logic and semantics. That is exhausting. But rarely in a bad way.

    I’m not playing some sort of game: ‘twisting’ isn’t an allegation I see as positive. Yes I use logic to make my points: I’m hardly going to apologise for that!
    I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that continuity wasn’t part of the films’ ‘formula’ right from the start in 1962?
    No, continuity barely existed back then. I saw YOLT before I ever saw the unseen Blofeld in FRWL or TB. I didn’t feel confused or felt I needed to see the previous films. Those films stood on their own. With the exception of SF, all the Craig films are heavily tied together. And even with SF they screwed the pooch after the fact by trying to jimmy it into the whole Craig Quantum/Spectre saga (i.e. it’s all connected to Bro-feld).

    True and a great illustration of the difference between the continuity of the Craig films versus the continuity of the Bond films at large. You can't take any Craig film out of context (except Skyfall) which is wholly unlike any other Bond film in the franchise.
    Come to think of it this may be one improvement over the novels that the films have done, specifically with OHMSS and YOLT. But just typing that, nothing beats the YOLT novel, what a madhouse.
    Absolutely!! Bond loses his wife in OHMSS and they don’t bring this up again until TSWLM (very briefly) and the beginning of FYEO for all of 10 seconds! If those films were done today we’d be hearing about Tracy in DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and on and on.... Bond would still be getting over her death in each film. What a depressing series of films those would have been!!

    Standalone is aways better than serialized. All these popular TV shows these days are so heavily serialized but tell me when was the last time you saw any of them being shown in reruns on your local TV channel showing reruns of older shows? Where’s the SOPRANOS? Where’s LOST? Where’s 24? Nowhere! Because these shows don’t play well in rerun format. People want to sit down and relax and catch one episode of something without having to watch the entire series! When I was growing up I was watching reruns of I LOVE LUCY, ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, HAWAII FIVE-O, MAGNUM PI, COLUMBO, THE A-TEAM, KNIGHT RIDER, etc. Those same shows I watched in reruns 20-30 years ago are still being shown in reruns today! Why? Because it’s an easy watch. Standalone plays better on repeat viewings.

    Sorry but saying The Soprano's does not stand up to repeat viewing compared to those other shows you mention means you are either having us on (hopefully) or your opinion is utter tosh and should be ignored at all costs!!

    I think he’s saying you can’t catch a random episode in the middle of Sopranos run and enjoy it out of context the same way you can catch an episode of Knight Rider and enjoy it out of context. Same applies to Breaking Bad (randomly watching S3 E8 in syndication, you wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on) yet Breaking Bad is some of the best television ever made.
    Yep, that was precisely my point!!

    Sorry to be pedantic but you specifically said "re-watch" which means you already know the context and therefore can certainly enjoy the quality of writing, acting and production on something like the Soprano's, the Wire or Breaking Bad when catching one episode. Certainly much more than watching a one programme off of dire quality.

    I am in the UK and The Soprano's is on almost constant loop here on Sky TV.

    +1
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2020 Posts: 16,606
    TFC1 wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @mtm, arguing with you is exhausting, not because you’re wright or wrong, but because you simply enjoy debate by logic and linguistic fencing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se, sometimes its good fun, but most of the time you’re arguing against people and things that are not antagonist to your aims. Twisting is not always putting into form, sometimes its just twisting.

    No need to get personal. I don’t believe in the assertion so I’m putting the case against it. Saying that the Bond films should and have never done something which they clearly have done several times right from the start makes no sense to me: maybe it does to you. You’re welcome to explain why you think they haven’t if you believe the opposite.
    I’m not going to have a go at your character: if you want to have a go at me personally please do so over the PMs, not on the open board. I don’t believe in questioning the person, just the opinion.

    Not having a go at you at all. I enjoy reading your comments. I just think that you two were actually in agreement and we’re fighting for semantics.

    Yes, Bond films have a formula and they also are always innovative one way or another.

    Getting rid of the so called formula entirely and calling that innovation would be idiotic. That doesn’t mean innovation hasn’t been part of the films since the beginning.

    And I suppose we all can agree on that.

    And hey, if I said racing against Alain Prost was exhausting, I wouldn’t be criticising him negatively, would I. You could very well take my post as a compliment. I did say you liked to fence using logic and semantics. That is exhausting. But rarely in a bad way.

    I’m not playing some sort of game: ‘twisting’ isn’t an allegation I see as positive. Yes I use logic to make my points: I’m hardly going to apologise for that!
    I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that continuity wasn’t part of the films’ ‘formula’ right from the start in 1962?
    No, continuity barely existed back then. I saw YOLT before I ever saw the unseen Blofeld in FRWL or TB. I didn’t feel confused or felt I needed to see the previous films. Those films stood on their own. With the exception of SF, all the Craig films are heavily tied together. And even with SF they screwed the pooch after the fact by trying to jimmy it into the whole Craig Quantum/Spectre saga (i.e. it’s all connected to Bro-feld).

    True and a great illustration of the difference between the continuity of the Craig films versus the continuity of the Bond films at large. You can't take any Craig film out of context (except Skyfall) which is wholly unlike any other Bond film in the franchise.
    Come to think of it this may be one improvement over the novels that the films have done, specifically with OHMSS and YOLT. But just typing that, nothing beats the YOLT novel, what a madhouse.
    Absolutely!! Bond loses his wife in OHMSS and they don’t bring this up again until TSWLM (very briefly) and the beginning of FYEO for all of 10 seconds! If those films were done today we’d be hearing about Tracy in DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and on and on.... Bond would still be getting over her death in each film. What a depressing series of films those would have been!!

    Standalone is aways better than serialized. All these popular TV shows these days are so heavily serialized but tell me when was the last time you saw any of them being shown in reruns on your local TV channel showing reruns of older shows? Where’s the SOPRANOS? Where’s LOST? Where’s 24? Nowhere! Because these shows don’t play well in rerun format. People want to sit down and relax and catch one episode of something without having to watch the entire series! When I was growing up I was watching reruns of I LOVE LUCY, ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, HAWAII FIVE-O, MAGNUM PI, COLUMBO, THE A-TEAM, KNIGHT RIDER, etc. Those same shows I watched in reruns 20-30 years ago are still being shown in reruns today! Why? Because it’s an easy watch. Standalone plays better on repeat viewings.

    Sorry but saying The Soprano's does not stand up to repeat viewing compared to those other shows you mention means you are either having us on (hopefully) or your opinion is utter tosh and should be ignored at all costs!!

    I think he’s saying you can’t catch a random episode in the middle of Sopranos run and enjoy it out of context the same way you can catch an episode of Knight Rider and enjoy it out of context. Same applies to Breaking Bad (randomly watching S3 E8 in syndication, you wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on) yet Breaking Bad is some of the best television ever made.
    Yep, that was precisely my point!!

    Sorry to be pedantic but you specifically said "re-watch" which means you already know the context and therefore can certainly enjoy the quality of writing, acting and production on something like the Soprano's, the Wire or Breaking Bad when catching one episode. Certainly much more than watching a one programme off of dire quality.

    I am in the UK and The Soprano's is on almost constant loop here on Sky TV.

    Yeah I've tried rewatching Knight Rider for nostalgia's sake and... it's crap. I'd much rather catch a random ep of The Sopranos again. Same for the Craig Bonds over some much more rubbish action movie- it doesn't take an awful lot for me to remember what had happened to him previously.
  • TFC1 wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @mtm, arguing with you is exhausting, not because you’re wright or wrong, but because you simply enjoy debate by logic and linguistic fencing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se, sometimes its good fun, but most of the time you’re arguing against people and things that are not antagonist to your aims. Twisting is not always putting into form, sometimes its just twisting.

    No need to get personal. I don’t believe in the assertion so I’m putting the case against it. Saying that the Bond films should and have never done something which they clearly have done several times right from the start makes no sense to me: maybe it does to you. You’re welcome to explain why you think they haven’t if you believe the opposite.
    I’m not going to have a go at your character: if you want to have a go at me personally please do so over the PMs, not on the open board. I don’t believe in questioning the person, just the opinion.

    Not having a go at you at all. I enjoy reading your comments. I just think that you two were actually in agreement and we’re fighting for semantics.

    Yes, Bond films have a formula and they also are always innovative one way or another.

    Getting rid of the so called formula entirely and calling that innovation would be idiotic. That doesn’t mean innovation hasn’t been part of the films since the beginning.

    And I suppose we all can agree on that.

    And hey, if I said racing against Alain Prost was exhausting, I wouldn’t be criticising him negatively, would I. You could very well take my post as a compliment. I did say you liked to fence using logic and semantics. That is exhausting. But rarely in a bad way.

    I’m not playing some sort of game: ‘twisting’ isn’t an allegation I see as positive. Yes I use logic to make my points: I’m hardly going to apologise for that!
    I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that continuity wasn’t part of the films’ ‘formula’ right from the start in 1962?
    No, continuity barely existed back then. I saw YOLT before I ever saw the unseen Blofeld in FRWL or TB. I didn’t feel confused or felt I needed to see the previous films. Those films stood on their own. With the exception of SF, all the Craig films are heavily tied together. And even with SF they screwed the pooch after the fact by trying to jimmy it into the whole Craig Quantum/Spectre saga (i.e. it’s all connected to Bro-feld).

    True and a great illustration of the difference between the continuity of the Craig films versus the continuity of the Bond films at large. You can't take any Craig film out of context (except Skyfall) which is wholly unlike any other Bond film in the franchise.
    Come to think of it this may be one improvement over the novels that the films have done, specifically with OHMSS and YOLT. But just typing that, nothing beats the YOLT novel, what a madhouse.
    Absolutely!! Bond loses his wife in OHMSS and they don’t bring this up again until TSWLM (very briefly) and the beginning of FYEO for all of 10 seconds! If those films were done today we’d be hearing about Tracy in DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and on and on.... Bond would still be getting over her death in each film. What a depressing series of films those would have been!!

    Standalone is aways better than serialized. All these popular TV shows these days are so heavily serialized but tell me when was the last time you saw any of them being shown in reruns on your local TV channel showing reruns of older shows? Where’s the SOPRANOS? Where’s LOST? Where’s 24? Nowhere! Because these shows don’t play well in rerun format. People want to sit down and relax and catch one episode of something without having to watch the entire series! When I was growing up I was watching reruns of I LOVE LUCY, ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, HAWAII FIVE-O, MAGNUM PI, COLUMBO, THE A-TEAM, KNIGHT RIDER, etc. Those same shows I watched in reruns 20-30 years ago are still being shown in reruns today! Why? Because it’s an easy watch. Standalone plays better on repeat viewings.

    Sorry but saying The Soprano's does not stand up to repeat viewing compared to those other shows you mention means you are either having us on (hopefully) or your opinion is utter tosh and should be ignored at all costs!!

    I think he’s saying you can’t catch a random episode in the middle of Sopranos run and enjoy it out of context the same way you can catch an episode of Knight Rider and enjoy it out of context. Same applies to Breaking Bad (randomly watching S3 E8 in syndication, you wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on) yet Breaking Bad is some of the best television ever made.
    Yep, that was precisely my point!!

    Sorry to be pedantic but you specifically said "re-watch" which means you already know the context and therefore can certainly enjoy the quality of writing, acting and production on something like the Soprano's, the Wire or Breaking Bad when catching one episode. Certainly much more than watching a one programme off of dire quality.

    I am in the UK and The Soprano's is on almost constant loop here on Sky TV.
    You’re simply not going to experience the same kind of impact when you’re watching a one-off episode vs. the entire series. Whether or not you’ve seen it before or not. And what about folks who have never seen the series and stumble onto a single random episode? They have no clue what happened before or what is yet to come in future episodes. You don’t have this same problem when watching a standalone episode of an older show.

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Gotta love ringfire's omniscence, I wish he gave me the lottery numbers
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    delfloria wrote: »
    "This changes everything"................. Yea, we discover Bond and Blofeld were never foster brothers.

    Hahaha I'd be so happy
  • Walecs wrote: »
    Gotta love ringfire's omniscence, I wish he gave me the lottery numbers
    25, 8, 16, 34, 1, 9, 18

  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Contraband wrote: »
    @antovolk @mtm @jake24 @marketto007

    TOTAL FILM febr issue. This is the only text they had and picture.

    d5E8JAI.jpg
    iYgtfV0.jpg

    Everyone: If you want the full magazine(PDF) with other stuff just give me a shout-out.

    I thought they said his villain was to stay out of politics I guess not. Michael Bloomberg won't like this film.
  • 007Blofeld wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    @antovolk @mtm @jake24 @marketto007

    TOTAL FILM febr issue. This is the only text they had and picture.

    d5E8JAI.jpg
    iYgtfV0.jpg

    Everyone: If you want the full magazine(PDF) with other stuff just give me a shout-out.

    I thought they said his villain was to stay out of politics I guess not. Michael Bloomberg won't like this film.

    I think Malek's main stipulation was that he wouldn't play an Islamic terrorist.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    @antovolk @mtm @jake24 @marketto007

    TOTAL FILM febr issue. This is the only text they had and picture.

    d5E8JAI.jpg
    iYgtfV0.jpg

    Everyone: If you want the full magazine(PDF) with other stuff just give me a shout-out.

    I thought they said his villain was to stay out of politics I guess not. Michael Bloomberg won't like this film.

    I think Malek's main stipulation was that he wouldn't play an Islamic terrorist.

    Yes, it was religion that was the condition. Not politics. Which is fine. Everything is political. Even the cartoonish Bonds have politics involved. It's the name of the game.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    @antovolk @mtm @jake24 @marketto007

    TOTAL FILM febr issue. This is the only text they had and picture.

    d5E8JAI.jpg
    iYgtfV0.jpg

    Everyone: If you want the full magazine(PDF) with other stuff just give me a shout-out.

    I thought they said his villain was to stay out of politics I guess not. Michael Bloomberg won't like this film.

    I think Malek's main stipulation was that he wouldn't play an Islamic terrorist.
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    @antovolk @mtm @jake24 @marketto007

    TOTAL FILM febr issue. This is the only text they had and picture.

    d5E8JAI.jpg
    iYgtfV0.jpg

    Everyone: If you want the full magazine(PDF) with other stuff just give me a shout-out.

    I thought they said his villain was to stay out of politics I guess not. Michael Bloomberg won't like this film.

    I think Malek's main stipulation was that he wouldn't play an Islamic terrorist.

    Yes, it was religion that was the condition. Not politics. Which is fine. Everything is political. Even the cartoonish Bonds have politics involved. It's the name of the game.

    This from wikipedia ideology is politics "Malek revealed in an interview that his character would not be connected to any religion or ideology".[70]
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    i·de·ol·o·gy
    /ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
    noun
    1.
    a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
    "the ideology of republicanism"
    synonyms: beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, doctrine, creed, credo, teaching, dogma, theory, thesis, tenets, canon(s); More
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    I hadn't a clue what ideology meant until now. Thank you.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,252
    I think his statement is a matter of semantics, with religion and Ideology having the same meaning; it doesn’t exclude political. As pointed out, virtually anything can be interpreted as “political “
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think his statement is a matter of semantics, with religion and Ideology having the same meaning; it doesn’t exclude political. As pointed out, virtually anything can be interpreted as “political “

    Exactly. Pretty much every living soul on the planet lives by an "ideology" of some sort.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think his statement is a matter of semantics, with religion and Ideology having the same meaning; it doesn’t exclude political. As pointed out, virtually anything can be interpreted as “political “

    Exactly. Pretty much every living soul on the planet lives by an "ideology" of some sort.

    Yeah, as ironic as it may sound, not having an ideology is itself an ideology. But I'm fairly sure Malek only referred to religion, as in "he's not an "ISIS terrorist" or something like that.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2020 Posts: 16,606
    TFC1 wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @mtm, arguing with you is exhausting, not because you’re wright or wrong, but because you simply enjoy debate by logic and linguistic fencing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se, sometimes its good fun, but most of the time you’re arguing against people and things that are not antagonist to your aims. Twisting is not always putting into form, sometimes its just twisting.

    No need to get personal. I don’t believe in the assertion so I’m putting the case against it. Saying that the Bond films should and have never done something which they clearly have done several times right from the start makes no sense to me: maybe it does to you. You’re welcome to explain why you think they haven’t if you believe the opposite.
    I’m not going to have a go at your character: if you want to have a go at me personally please do so over the PMs, not on the open board. I don’t believe in questioning the person, just the opinion.

    Not having a go at you at all. I enjoy reading your comments. I just think that you two were actually in agreement and we’re fighting for semantics.

    Yes, Bond films have a formula and they also are always innovative one way or another.

    Getting rid of the so called formula entirely and calling that innovation would be idiotic. That doesn’t mean innovation hasn’t been part of the films since the beginning.

    And I suppose we all can agree on that.

    And hey, if I said racing against Alain Prost was exhausting, I wouldn’t be criticising him negatively, would I. You could very well take my post as a compliment. I did say you liked to fence using logic and semantics. That is exhausting. But rarely in a bad way.

    I’m not playing some sort of game: ‘twisting’ isn’t an allegation I see as positive. Yes I use logic to make my points: I’m hardly going to apologise for that!
    I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that continuity wasn’t part of the films’ ‘formula’ right from the start in 1962?
    No, continuity barely existed back then. I saw YOLT before I ever saw the unseen Blofeld in FRWL or TB. I didn’t feel confused or felt I needed to see the previous films. Those films stood on their own. With the exception of SF, all the Craig films are heavily tied together. And even with SF they screwed the pooch after the fact by trying to jimmy it into the whole Craig Quantum/Spectre saga (i.e. it’s all connected to Bro-feld).

    True and a great illustration of the difference between the continuity of the Craig films versus the continuity of the Bond films at large. You can't take any Craig film out of context (except Skyfall) which is wholly unlike any other Bond film in the franchise.
    Come to think of it this may be one improvement over the novels that the films have done, specifically with OHMSS and YOLT. But just typing that, nothing beats the YOLT novel, what a madhouse.
    Absolutely!! Bond loses his wife in OHMSS and they don’t bring this up again until TSWLM (very briefly) and the beginning of FYEO for all of 10 seconds! If those films were done today we’d be hearing about Tracy in DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and on and on.... Bond would still be getting over her death in each film. What a depressing series of films those would have been!!

    Standalone is aways better than serialized. All these popular TV shows these days are so heavily serialized but tell me when was the last time you saw any of them being shown in reruns on your local TV channel showing reruns of older shows? Where’s the SOPRANOS? Where’s LOST? Where’s 24? Nowhere! Because these shows don’t play well in rerun format. People want to sit down and relax and catch one episode of something without having to watch the entire series! When I was growing up I was watching reruns of I LOVE LUCY, ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, HAWAII FIVE-O, MAGNUM PI, COLUMBO, THE A-TEAM, KNIGHT RIDER, etc. Those same shows I watched in reruns 20-30 years ago are still being shown in reruns today! Why? Because it’s an easy watch. Standalone plays better on repeat viewings.

    Sorry but saying The Soprano's does not stand up to repeat viewing compared to those other shows you mention means you are either having us on (hopefully) or your opinion is utter tosh and should be ignored at all costs!!

    I think he’s saying you can’t catch a random episode in the middle of Sopranos run and enjoy it out of context the same way you can catch an episode of Knight Rider and enjoy it out of context. Same applies to Breaking Bad (randomly watching S3 E8 in syndication, you wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on) yet Breaking Bad is some of the best television ever made.
    Yep, that was precisely my point!!

    Sorry to be pedantic but you specifically said "re-watch" which means you already know the context and therefore can certainly enjoy the quality of writing, acting and production on something like the Soprano's, the Wire or Breaking Bad when catching one episode. Certainly much more than watching a one programme off of dire quality.

    I am in the UK and The Soprano's is on almost constant loop here on Sky TV.
    You’re simply not going to experience the same kind of impact when you’re watching a one-off episode vs. the entire series. Whether or not you’ve seen it before or not. And what about folks who have never seen the series and stumble onto a single random episode? They have no clue what happened before or what is yet to come in future episodes. You don’t have this same problem when watching a standalone episode of an older show.

    Why are you worried about other people? I’m only concerned whether I can follow something or not. They’re not going to make the storylines in Bond so complicated that folks can’t follow them.
    Have you been confused by the plot of the films over the last fifteen years?
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited February 2020 Posts: 4,247
    I wonder who Primo works for....maybe Blofeld or Safin...or Both. Although Primo looks an adversary of Bond's size....rather than Mr Stamper or Hinx....and it looks like Primo might be the main Henchman...since him and Bond were engaging in some brutal fisticuffs from the trailer.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    mtm wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @mtm, arguing with you is exhausting, not because you’re wright or wrong, but because you simply enjoy debate by logic and linguistic fencing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se, sometimes its good fun, but most of the time you’re arguing against people and things that are not antagonist to your aims. Twisting is not always putting into form, sometimes its just twisting.

    No need to get personal. I don’t believe in the assertion so I’m putting the case against it. Saying that the Bond films should and have never done something which they clearly have done several times right from the start makes no sense to me: maybe it does to you. You’re welcome to explain why you think they haven’t if you believe the opposite.
    I’m not going to have a go at your character: if you want to have a go at me personally please do so over the PMs, not on the open board. I don’t believe in questioning the person, just the opinion.

    Not having a go at you at all. I enjoy reading your comments. I just think that you two were actually in agreement and we’re fighting for semantics.

    Yes, Bond films have a formula and they also are always innovative one way or another.

    Getting rid of the so called formula entirely and calling that innovation would be idiotic. That doesn’t mean innovation hasn’t been part of the films since the beginning.

    And I suppose we all can agree on that.

    And hey, if I said racing against Alain Prost was exhausting, I wouldn’t be criticising him negatively, would I. You could very well take my post as a compliment. I did say you liked to fence using logic and semantics. That is exhausting. But rarely in a bad way.

    I’m not playing some sort of game: ‘twisting’ isn’t an allegation I see as positive. Yes I use logic to make my points: I’m hardly going to apologise for that!
    I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that continuity wasn’t part of the films’ ‘formula’ right from the start in 1962?
    No, continuity barely existed back then. I saw YOLT before I ever saw the unseen Blofeld in FRWL or TB. I didn’t feel confused or felt I needed to see the previous films. Those films stood on their own. With the exception of SF, all the Craig films are heavily tied together. And even with SF they screwed the pooch after the fact by trying to jimmy it into the whole Craig Quantum/Spectre saga (i.e. it’s all connected to Bro-feld).

    True and a great illustration of the difference between the continuity of the Craig films versus the continuity of the Bond films at large. You can't take any Craig film out of context (except Skyfall) which is wholly unlike any other Bond film in the franchise.
    Come to think of it this may be one improvement over the novels that the films have done, specifically with OHMSS and YOLT. But just typing that, nothing beats the YOLT novel, what a madhouse.
    Absolutely!! Bond loses his wife in OHMSS and they don’t bring this up again until TSWLM (very briefly) and the beginning of FYEO for all of 10 seconds! If those films were done today we’d be hearing about Tracy in DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and on and on.... Bond would still be getting over her death in each film. What a depressing series of films those would have been!!

    Standalone is aways better than serialized. All these popular TV shows these days are so heavily serialized but tell me when was the last time you saw any of them being shown in reruns on your local TV channel showing reruns of older shows? Where’s the SOPRANOS? Where’s LOST? Where’s 24? Nowhere! Because these shows don’t play well in rerun format. People want to sit down and relax and catch one episode of something without having to watch the entire series! When I was growing up I was watching reruns of I LOVE LUCY, ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, HAWAII FIVE-O, MAGNUM PI, COLUMBO, THE A-TEAM, KNIGHT RIDER, etc. Those same shows I watched in reruns 20-30 years ago are still being shown in reruns today! Why? Because it’s an easy watch. Standalone plays better on repeat viewings.

    Sorry but saying The Soprano's does not stand up to repeat viewing compared to those other shows you mention means you are either having us on (hopefully) or your opinion is utter tosh and should be ignored at all costs!!

    I think he’s saying you can’t catch a random episode in the middle of Sopranos run and enjoy it out of context the same way you can catch an episode of Knight Rider and enjoy it out of context. Same applies to Breaking Bad (randomly watching S3 E8 in syndication, you wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on) yet Breaking Bad is some of the best television ever made.
    Yep, that was precisely my point!!

    Sorry to be pedantic but you specifically said "re-watch" which means you already know the context and therefore can certainly enjoy the quality of writing, acting and production on something like the Soprano's, the Wire or Breaking Bad when catching one episode. Certainly much more than watching a one programme off of dire quality.

    I am in the UK and The Soprano's is on almost constant loop here on Sky TV.
    You’re simply not going to experience the same kind of impact when you’re watching a one-off episode vs. the entire series. Whether or not you’ve seen it before or not. And what about folks who have never seen the series and stumble onto a single random episode? They have no clue what happened before or what is yet to come in future episodes. You don’t have this same problem when watching a standalone episode of an older show.

    Why are you worried about other people? I’m only concerned whether I can follow something or not. They’re not going to make the storylines in Bond so complicated that folks can’t follow them.
    Have you been confused by the plot of the films over the last fifteen years?

    This is your friendly reminder that the person you're talking to is a troll. A couple of weeks ago they were arguing that climate change is a lie in the Billie Eilish thread and despite my attempts to talk about it in PMs so to avoid any off topic Ringfire ignored my PMs as well as any mod warnings and kept hijacking the thread with his do-gooders derogation and Lucifer nonsense. Don't even try to argue with them, it's pointless.
  • Posts: 6,710
    Walecs wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    TFC1 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    @mtm, arguing with you is exhausting, not because you’re wright or wrong, but because you simply enjoy debate by logic and linguistic fencing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that per se, sometimes its good fun, but most of the time you’re arguing against people and things that are not antagonist to your aims. Twisting is not always putting into form, sometimes its just twisting.

    No need to get personal. I don’t believe in the assertion so I’m putting the case against it. Saying that the Bond films should and have never done something which they clearly have done several times right from the start makes no sense to me: maybe it does to you. You’re welcome to explain why you think they haven’t if you believe the opposite.
    I’m not going to have a go at your character: if you want to have a go at me personally please do so over the PMs, not on the open board. I don’t believe in questioning the person, just the opinion.

    Not having a go at you at all. I enjoy reading your comments. I just think that you two were actually in agreement and we’re fighting for semantics.

    Yes, Bond films have a formula and they also are always innovative one way or another.

    Getting rid of the so called formula entirely and calling that innovation would be idiotic. That doesn’t mean innovation hasn’t been part of the films since the beginning.

    And I suppose we all can agree on that.

    And hey, if I said racing against Alain Prost was exhausting, I wouldn’t be criticising him negatively, would I. You could very well take my post as a compliment. I did say you liked to fence using logic and semantics. That is exhausting. But rarely in a bad way.

    I’m not playing some sort of game: ‘twisting’ isn’t an allegation I see as positive. Yes I use logic to make my points: I’m hardly going to apologise for that!
    I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Are you saying that continuity wasn’t part of the films’ ‘formula’ right from the start in 1962?
    No, continuity barely existed back then. I saw YOLT before I ever saw the unseen Blofeld in FRWL or TB. I didn’t feel confused or felt I needed to see the previous films. Those films stood on their own. With the exception of SF, all the Craig films are heavily tied together. And even with SF they screwed the pooch after the fact by trying to jimmy it into the whole Craig Quantum/Spectre saga (i.e. it’s all connected to Bro-feld).

    True and a great illustration of the difference between the continuity of the Craig films versus the continuity of the Bond films at large. You can't take any Craig film out of context (except Skyfall) which is wholly unlike any other Bond film in the franchise.
    Come to think of it this may be one improvement over the novels that the films have done, specifically with OHMSS and YOLT. But just typing that, nothing beats the YOLT novel, what a madhouse.
    Absolutely!! Bond loses his wife in OHMSS and they don’t bring this up again until TSWLM (very briefly) and the beginning of FYEO for all of 10 seconds! If those films were done today we’d be hearing about Tracy in DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and on and on.... Bond would still be getting over her death in each film. What a depressing series of films those would have been!!

    Standalone is aways better than serialized. All these popular TV shows these days are so heavily serialized but tell me when was the last time you saw any of them being shown in reruns on your local TV channel showing reruns of older shows? Where’s the SOPRANOS? Where’s LOST? Where’s 24? Nowhere! Because these shows don’t play well in rerun format. People want to sit down and relax and catch one episode of something without having to watch the entire series! When I was growing up I was watching reruns of I LOVE LUCY, ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, HAWAII FIVE-O, MAGNUM PI, COLUMBO, THE A-TEAM, KNIGHT RIDER, etc. Those same shows I watched in reruns 20-30 years ago are still being shown in reruns today! Why? Because it’s an easy watch. Standalone plays better on repeat viewings.

    Sorry but saying The Soprano's does not stand up to repeat viewing compared to those other shows you mention means you are either having us on (hopefully) or your opinion is utter tosh and should be ignored at all costs!!

    I think he’s saying you can’t catch a random episode in the middle of Sopranos run and enjoy it out of context the same way you can catch an episode of Knight Rider and enjoy it out of context. Same applies to Breaking Bad (randomly watching S3 E8 in syndication, you wouldn’t have any idea of what was going on) yet Breaking Bad is some of the best television ever made.
    Yep, that was precisely my point!!

    Sorry to be pedantic but you specifically said "re-watch" which means you already know the context and therefore can certainly enjoy the quality of writing, acting and production on something like the Soprano's, the Wire or Breaking Bad when catching one episode. Certainly much more than watching a one programme off of dire quality.

    I am in the UK and The Soprano's is on almost constant loop here on Sky TV.
    You’re simply not going to experience the same kind of impact when you’re watching a one-off episode vs. the entire series. Whether or not you’ve seen it before or not. And what about folks who have never seen the series and stumble onto a single random episode? They have no clue what happened before or what is yet to come in future episodes. You don’t have this same problem when watching a standalone episode of an older show.

    Why are you worried about other people? I’m only concerned whether I can follow something or not. They’re not going to make the storylines in Bond so complicated that folks can’t follow them.
    Have you been confused by the plot of the films over the last fifteen years?

    This is your friendly reminder that the person you're talking to is a troll. A couple of weeks ago they were arguing that climate change is a lie in the Billie Eilish thread and despite my attempts to talk about it in PMs so to avoid any off topic Ringfire ignored my PMs as well as any mod warnings and kept hijacking the thread with his do-gooders derogation and Lucifer nonsense. Don't even try to argue with them, it's pointless.

    Thanks for the reminder, @Walecs, actually, thank you for the info. Jeez, Lucifer and climate change conspiracies? Really? I had no idea we’d come to that. I haven’t been around much lately. And here I was trying to see some sense in his arguments. Dully noted. And I thought we’d got rid of the trolls in the last couple of months. Lucifer... =)) Please... @-)
  • Posts: 3,164
    Fiennes as M looking badass
    EQRBW2gW4AE6uIB?format=jpg&name=large

    From a Russian shortened trailer/spot which looks like that one with Blofeld going 'your enemy is my enemy now' some on here have seen at the cinema...

  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited February 2020 Posts: 2,541
    Damn, after hearing Russian voice in that trailer, how much i miss a Russian Villian in craig era. Hope we get one soon after this.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,185
    antovolk wrote: »


    Bwhahahah, they completely erased Nomi from the russian trailer?! LOL! Love it.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Damn, after hearing Russian voice in that trailer, how much i miss a Russian Villian in craig era. Hope we get one soon after this.

    I mean, Safin may or may not be Russian....
Sign In or Register to comment.