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

1116117119121122180

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 2020 Posts: 4,589
    Contraband wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    JG007 wrote: »
    We're in a really exciting time now. We have quite a bit of stuff imminent. Second poster, second trailer, title song, TV spots, merchandise adverts, movie clips, chat show interviews with the cast and maybe 1 or 2 pieces of the score.

    It will be quite a full 8 weeks of content now on the lead up to release. I would personally be surprised if they don't tag the second trailer to Birds of Prey as that is really the only last big release before Bond and it would be useful to get additional exposure in front of a large audience for that film.

    As mentioned we will get alot of stuff now as i cant see them dropping all the above content in 1 month before the film, it'll be a steady stream of stuff over the next 2 right?

    I know clips, bits of the score and the chat show interviews will likely be the back end of March but poster, trailer 2, merchandise adverts and title song are surely due throughout this month?...

    The title song would a least need 2-3 weeks in and around the charts before the film comes out to have a chance though? Does anyone remember how close the last 2 title songs were released before the films release?

    -{

    Keep an eye out for The Graham Norton Show. Guessing we should have Daniel & co as guests Friday March 27. No bookings yet going by wiki:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Graham_Norton_Show_episodes#Series_26_

    Also have The Jonathan Ross show. Series 16 should start in a few weeks.

    The same thing goes for all the american talkshows. With the US premiere on April 10 I would say that the first week of April will be a busy week for Daniel & co

    Here in the U.S. it will be interesting to see if DC gets booked to host Saturday Night Live again. His first outing in 2012 was so-so. But I see no reason why he wouldn't do it again, at some point.

    Haven't seen DC in SNL. But ok. We might see him again doing some sketch with Stephen Colbert, like he did the last time promoting Skyfall or maybe it was Spectre



  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Interesting that nomi isn't listed here she is part of mi6 https://www.facebook.com/266350353379883/posts/3211826308832258/
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,617
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,970
    Lol just saw someone say that the plane scene in the spot is woke because Nomi's in the front and Bond's in the back. The same person also made a video saying that Billie wasn't a good choice because she's a satan worshipper... He also thinks that Q is getting a gay wedding, which he's calling another woke choice by EON??
  • Posts: 6,710
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Zekidk wrote: »
    It's all personal preference. Some like the mask to be teal, some - like myself - prefer the mask to be more natural white looking.
    jprl4eB.jpg

    Doubt I would eat the one on the left.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?

    For after the Craig era? Absolutely. But I loved that's this is a decision they decided to roll with specifically for the Craig films.
  • Posts: 6,710
    antovolk wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?

    For after the Craig era? Absolutely. But I loved that's this is a decision they decided to roll with specifically for the Craig films.

    Yes, me too. One more reason to leave it contained for this era alone.
  • Yes I saw the same thing. Also referred to Nomi as 'Blackie'. Heard his comments regarding Billie as well. Drawn in under the impression he is a Bond fan but quite obviously a troll who also badmouths other Bond sites. Apalling.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    Lol just saw someone say that the plane scene in the spot is woke because Nomi's in the front and Bond's in the back. The same person also made a video saying that Billie wasn't a good choice because she's a satan worshipper... He also thinks that Q is getting a gay wedding, which he's calling another woke choice by EON??

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2020 Posts: 16,617
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?

    I don’t want to spoil it for you, but Bond’s marriage to Tracy was mentioned several times :)

    And I don’t think it made it special at all. I didn’t mind it, but equally I didn’t mind (and probably preferred) Blofeld trying to get one back on Bond for Dr No’s death in FRWL, or him meeting Sylvia Trench for a kiss and cuddle again. I don’t see how that made FRWL bad, neither do I see how it was bad for Fleming to have a throughline of continuity of events in his novels, particularly towards the end. Both the Connery films and Fleming novels are what are always touted as being what the current films should aspire to, but if they do that they get criticised anyway.
    I honestly can’t see any reason to want not continuity between films: the only reason being given here is nostalgia.

    Saying that other films have continuity therefore we shouldn’t is a non-argument. Why not have M become a cartoon character halfway through? How about Bond no longer is subject to gravity? Or he starts remembering things that will happen to him in the future? You don’t do things just because other films don’t, and characters remembering what happened to them previously is a pretty essential element of drama. It’s not being conformist to follow logic.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?

    I don’t want to spoil it for you, but Bond’s marriage to Tracy was mentioned several times :)

    And I don’t think it made it special at all. I didn’t mind it, but equally I didn’t mind (and probably preferred) Blofeld trying to get one back on Bond for Dr No’s death in FRWL, or him meeting Sylvia Trench for a kiss and cuddle again. I don’t see how that made FRWL bad, neither do I see how it was bad for Fleming to have a throughline of continuity of events in his novels, particularly towards the end. Both the Connery films and Fleming novels are what are always touted as being what the current films should aspire to, but if they do that they get criticised anyway.
    I honestly can’t see any reason to want not continuity between films: the only reason being given here is nostalgia.

    Saying that other films have continuity therefore we shouldn’t is a non-argument. Why not have M become a cartoon character halfway through? How about Bond no longer is subject to gravity? Or he starts remembering things that will happen to him in the future? You don’t do things just because other films don’t, and characters remembering what happened to them previously is a pretty essential element of drama. It’s not being conformist to follow logic.
    You’re clearly not a fan of the classic Bond films. You sound like someone who grew up on the Craig films. Classic Bond tropes are to be adhered to. That’s what makes it BOND. Following other franchises is doing a disservice to your own franchise. Why should I do what other franchises are doing when I have my own thing going??? Let Marvel be Marvel and let Bond be Bond. Different animals entirely.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,227
    You’re clearly not a fan of the classic Bond films. You sound like someone who grew up on the Craig films. Classic Bond tropes are to be adhered to. That’s what makes it BOND. Following other franchises is doing a disservice to your own franchise. Why should I do what other franchises are doing when I have my own thing going??? Let Marvel be Marvel and let Bond be Bond. Different animals entirely.

    I take it you never saw MOONRAKER and a whole bunch of other Bond films that followed trends of the times.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,232
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.

    I think you've linked the wrong ones because they're certainly not the same.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,617
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?

    I don’t want to spoil it for you, but Bond’s marriage to Tracy was mentioned several times :)

    And I don’t think it made it special at all. I didn’t mind it, but equally I didn’t mind (and probably preferred) Blofeld trying to get one back on Bond for Dr No’s death in FRWL, or him meeting Sylvia Trench for a kiss and cuddle again. I don’t see how that made FRWL bad, neither do I see how it was bad for Fleming to have a throughline of continuity of events in his novels, particularly towards the end. Both the Connery films and Fleming novels are what are always touted as being what the current films should aspire to, but if they do that they get criticised anyway.
    I honestly can’t see any reason to want not continuity between films: the only reason being given here is nostalgia.

    Saying that other films have continuity therefore we shouldn’t is a non-argument. Why not have M become a cartoon character halfway through? How about Bond no longer is subject to gravity? Or he starts remembering things that will happen to him in the future? You don’t do things just because other films don’t, and characters remembering what happened to them previously is a pretty essential element of drama. It’s not being conformist to follow logic.
    You’re clearly not a fan of the classic Bond films. You sound like someone who grew up on the Craig films. Classic Bond tropes are to be adhered to. That’s what makes it BOND. Following other franchises is doing a disservice to your own franchise. Why should I do what other franchises are doing when I have my own thing going??? Let Marvel be Marvel and let Bond be Bond. Different animals entirely.

    I don’t understand how you can say I’m not a fan of the classic Bond films in reply to a post where I say how the classic Bond films did exactly what I’m talking about, and I say how I liked that..? I wonder if you’ll reply: I’m willing to bet you won’t.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,227
    Ringfire is just still upset that Roger Moore isn’t Bond anymore.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,126
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen. @Denbigh they may not be but it looks like the same lake maybe that house has significance here is one I mean in the car http://imgur.com/a/akQL5SI
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?

    I don’t want to spoil it for you, but Bond’s marriage to Tracy was mentioned several times :)

    And I don’t think it made it special at all. I didn’t mind it, but equally I didn’t mind (and probably preferred) Blofeld trying to get one back on Bond for Dr No’s death in FRWL, or him meeting Sylvia Trench for a kiss and cuddle again. I don’t see how that made FRWL bad, neither do I see how it was bad for Fleming to have a throughline of continuity of events in his novels, particularly towards the end. Both the Connery films and Fleming novels are what are always touted as being what the current films should aspire to, but if they do that they get criticised anyway.
    I honestly can’t see any reason to want not continuity between films: the only reason being given here is nostalgia.

    Saying that other films have continuity therefore we shouldn’t is a non-argument. Why not have M become a cartoon character halfway through? How about Bond no longer is subject to gravity? Or he starts remembering things that will happen to him in the future? You don’t do things just because other films don’t, and characters remembering what happened to them previously is a pretty essential element of drama. It’s not being conformist to follow logic.
    You’re clearly not a fan of the classic Bond films. You sound like someone who grew up on the Craig films. Classic Bond tropes are to be adhered to. That’s what makes it BOND. Following other franchises is doing a disservice to your own franchise. Why should I do what other franchises are doing when I have my own thing going??? Let Marvel be Marvel and let Bond be Bond. Different animals entirely.

    Bond has more or less always followed in the trends of the film movements around it. I believe that to be a strength. It keeps the series relevant to the times.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited February 2020 Posts: 5,970
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Ryan wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I believe the DR NO reveal will be established as the film ends with Ursula Andress coming out of the sea. We cut to Connery awakening and discover the entire Craig era had been a nightmare he had while sleeping on the beach. Boom, we're back to the original timeline.

    In all seriousness, I’m starting to wonder if they’re going to find someway to merge the timelines.

    I was thinking the same thing. I realize that it is extremely unlikely, but I would love it!

    @Birdleson I'd love to know more about what this "merging" of the timelines would look like in your opinion? Like does the Craig era end up in the Connery era, or something else?

    Very messy and very vague. I’d love the next Bond to pick up in a world where either previous continuity could be embraced or ignored as needed.

    Isn't that the world that film Bond has always inhabited. Are OHMSS and DAF part of the same film series? You'd never know it from watching them.

    Continuity is there to use when/if the producers want and then unceremoniously ditched when it no longer serves their purposes

    Exactly. And I'd like the Craig Era enfolded into that. I don't want a hard continuity, which they seemed determined to give us with the Craig films. I want to go back to the arbitrary and vague continuity.

    Where everyone forgets he married Tracy and she was never mentioned again? :D
    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a proper continuity: every other film series has one.

    Actually, yes. That was one of the many things that made the Bond films so special. I would love it if they went back to that weird non continuous system.

    It seems that many people are using the “if they’re making it that way, why can’t Bond?” argument. And that’s what’s wrong with today’s state of the art. Uniformity and imitation aren’t recipes for success. Bond survived throughout all these years because, although it was influenced by cinema and cultural trends, it remained its very own thing, with a proper and inimitable winning formula. Let’s go back to that, please. It’s not too late. We’ve won quality markers with the last films. Let’s merge that with formula and see where that takes us, shall we? No more of this run of the mill franchise continuity faux character archs, please. Give us a full blow, individual, stylish, quality Bond adventure. After having high quality and formula deconstruction, why not try high quality and formula?

    I don’t want to spoil it for you, but Bond’s marriage to Tracy was mentioned several times :)

    And I don’t think it made it special at all. I didn’t mind it, but equally I didn’t mind (and probably preferred) Blofeld trying to get one back on Bond for Dr No’s death in FRWL, or him meeting Sylvia Trench for a kiss and cuddle again. I don’t see how that made FRWL bad, neither do I see how it was bad for Fleming to have a throughline of continuity of events in his novels, particularly towards the end. Both the Connery films and Fleming novels are what are always touted as being what the current films should aspire to, but if they do that they get criticised anyway.
    I honestly can’t see any reason to want not continuity between films: the only reason being given here is nostalgia.

    Saying that other films have continuity therefore we shouldn’t is a non-argument. Why not have M become a cartoon character halfway through? How about Bond no longer is subject to gravity? Or he starts remembering things that will happen to him in the future? You don’t do things just because other films don’t, and characters remembering what happened to them previously is a pretty essential element of drama. It’s not being conformist to follow logic.
    You’re clearly not a fan of the classic Bond films. You sound like someone who grew up on the Craig films. Classic Bond tropes are to be adhered to. That’s what makes it BOND. Following other franchises is doing a disservice to your own franchise. Why should I do what other franchises are doing when I have my own thing going??? Let Marvel be Marvel and let Bond be Bond. Different animals entirely.

    Bond has more or less always followed in the trends of the film movements around it. I believe that to be a strength. It keeps the series relevant to the times.

    Not necessarily its actually better if the go back to Fleming. I think Joe darlington has a video on the very subject at being James Bond on YouTube. Moonraker they tried the star wars copy and paste and everyone pans that and then they went back to basics with FYEO.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.

    Is that the Valhalla?
    screen-shot-2020-02-03-at-11-33-16-1580729648.jpg?resize=768:*
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,617
    Ringfire is just still upset that Roger Moore isn’t Bond anymore.

    Ah well; much that I enjoy Craig, I’d agree with him on that one! :)
  • ggl007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.

    Is that the Valhalla?
    screen-shot-2020-02-03-at-11-33-16-1580729648.jpg?resize=768:*

    Getting the same vibe. I think this film ends with Bond dying and Nomi getting the Valhalla.

    In fact, I’d be kinda bummed if Craig’s finale doesn’t do something as bold as this....
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,617
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.

    Is that the Valhalla?
    screen-shot-2020-02-03-at-11-33-16-1580729648.jpg?resize=768:*

    I don’t think so; looks like a DBS seat to me.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.

    Is that the Valhalla?
    screen-shot-2020-02-03-at-11-33-16-1580729648.jpg?resize=768:*

    Aston Martin DBS Superleggera
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.

    Is that the Valhalla?
    screen-shot-2020-02-03-at-11-33-16-1580729648.jpg?resize=768:*

    Getting the same vibe. I think this film ends with Bond dying and Nomi getting the Valhalla.

    In fact, I’d be kinda bummed if Craig’s finale doesn’t do something as bold as this....

    That would be horrible.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    No, I think both agents will be alive at the end of the film.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,170
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.

    Is that the Valhalla?
    screen-shot-2020-02-03-at-11-33-16-1580729648.jpg?resize=768:*

    Getting the same vibe. I think this film ends with Bond dying and Nomi getting the Valhalla.

    In fact, I’d be kinda bummed if Craig’s finale doesn’t do something as bold as this....

    With what little we know, I wouldn't be shocked.
    Especially with the '25th Bond film will change everything' teaser.

    What if...
    Bond dies, and the end credits read 'OO7 will return'
  • Posts: 12,524
    Benny wrote: »
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got this shot and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Is it just me or these shots the same? https://i.imgur.com/ywKSF1I.jpg
    https://i.imgur.com/TsX9q7v.jpg
    Then you got where she pulls up to Bond and she is in a car on the different side and the background is different.
    What do you mean the same?

    I meant the background with the lake the other one is blurred because of the screen.
    I have a small theory that this could be her last scene near the end of the film. I don't know why really haha, but the shot feels very... yes I just kicked arse with James Bond and now I'm gonna get my next mission. I could be very wrong but I get that vibe. I think those scenes you've posted are different scenes. I think that whole look with the mask and the coat will only appear in that sequence we've seen in the trailers.

    Is that the Valhalla?
    screen-shot-2020-02-03-at-11-33-16-1580729648.jpg?resize=768:*

    Getting the same vibe. I think this film ends with Bond dying and Nomi getting the Valhalla.

    In fact, I’d be kinda bummed if Craig’s finale doesn’t do something as bold as this....

    With what little we know, I wouldn't be shocked.
    Especially with the '25th Bond film will change everything' teaser.

    What if...
    Bond dies, and the end credits read 'OO7 will return'

    This would be received horribly, as it should be.
Sign In or Register to comment.