› ›

Do you have any concerns or niggles about NTTD ,or are you full of confidence ?

12467…45

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,569
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Then why change their race/gender other than to pander?

    Why not just give it to any good actor regardless of their race? IMO Naomi Harris was perfectly cast as she has the right flirtatious vibe, and has good charisma with Craig. That’s all you need from Moneypenny. There’s no sense in only limiting it to white women when others could fit the part just fine.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Changing Bond’s race would definitely lose that “man out of time” aspect that made Fleming’s Bond feel like an old relic in the modern world. In the novels it was about Bond finding himself in post-WWII era. Later on post-Cold War and post-9/11 for the films.

    There’s a quote I like from Waller-Bridges when discussing what a Bond film in the #MeToo era would be like

    “the important thing is that the film treats the women properly. He doesn’t have to. He needs to be true to his character”

    Bond FILMS can be more progressive as time moves forward, but the Bond character will always be Bond. Except for the smoking part, I guess.

    I never could understand the smoking part? I am non smoker still think bond looks really cool while smoking
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Why not just give it to any good actor regardless of their race? IMO Naomi Harris was perfectly cast as she has the right flirtatious vibe, and has good charisma with Craig. That’s all you need from Moneypenny. There’s no sense in only limiting it to white women when others could fit the part just fine.

    I like Naomie as MP she fits perfectly for me
  • TopGearJB007TopGearJB007
    Posts: 627
    I like Harris as Moneypenny just fine, my problem is her backstory was unnecessary, and the screen time for the Scooby gang in general (M, Q, MP) has been too much. None of them have to be so emphasized so much. They were never major characters and they still don't need to be. I hope Bond 25 pares their roles back a bit but I doubt it will.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,347
    TopGearJB007 wrote: »
    I like Harris as Moneypenny just fine, my problem is her backstory was unnecessary, and the screen time for the Scooby gang in general (M, Q, MP) has been too much. None of them have to be so emphasized so much. They were never major characters and they still don't need to be. I hope Bond 25 pares their roles back a bit but I doubt it will.

    This means nothing.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Why not just give it to any good actor regardless of their race? IMO Naomi Harris was perfectly cast as she has the right flirtatious vibe, and has good charisma with Craig. That’s all you need from Moneypenny. There’s no sense in only limiting it to white women when others could fit the part just fine.

    Because race-baiting and pandering is bad for everyone. Tokenizing a certain race is belittling to them and takes away roles meant to be played by members of the original race of the character. Again, why do it all? If the character is written a certain way there is no reason to change accept to pander to a specific audience and to virtue signal.
  • duke_togoduke_togo france
    edited July 2019 Posts: 138
    ...
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Another point of tokenism: it's stating very clearly to blacks, Latinos, whatever, that they are not good enough to get their own parts outside of this form of affirmative action and that their own race's characters are not good enough to adapt. Also, it piggybacks off the decades of work specific characters have put in over time.

    Pardon the strong language in this clip:
  • TopGearJB007TopGearJB007
    Posts: 627
    matt_u wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    This means nothing.
    Your response means nothing because you didn't explain why my comment means nothing.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,347
    TopGearJB007 wrote: »
    show previous quotes
    Your response means nothing because you didn't explain why my comment means nothing.

    Oh come on, it's obvious. The fact that they had less things to do back in the days doesn't mean they shouldn't have more now in this new Bond era.
  • TopGearJB007TopGearJB007
    Posts: 627
    @matt_u Fair enough, but I don't want or need a superhero team in the Bond world. Bond doesn't need a team backing him up 24/7. He is a single man wrecking crew.

    Why should they get more screen time? For the sake of it? Cause the Avengers is a team? Cause the X Men are a team? Cause Ethan Hunt has a team? It just comes off as cliche and it would be change for the sake of change. It reminds me more of the Scooby crew solving mysteries than a Bond movie.

    I like Fiennes as M. I like Harris as Moneypenny. I even like Wishaw as Q. Doesn't mean I need them in constant contact with Bond for 2 hours.
  • Commander_JimCommander_Jim Sydney
    edited July 2019 Posts: 3
    I have very little confidence in this film tbh. As much as I loved CR and the Craig era at the start, I think it went badly off the rails and just keeps derailing and this will be the climactic train wreck. Once again we’ve got more “continuation”, which has been the worst and most misguided thing about the Craig era. Once more we’re going to have a reluctant Craig Bond forced to return to the job (how much of the Craig era has Bond actually been 007? Like 30%?). There’s the new female 007 and “reflect the MeToo movement” nonsense, so queue the themes of Bond being old, obsolete, old fashioned, sexist etc because that hasn’t gotten tired yet /s. we’ve probably got another “personal” story with the return of Madeleine and brother Blofeld. We’ve got all the behind the scenes dramas with the rewrites and director changes etc and I’m not left with a positive feeling about this one, at all.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,850
    Commander_Jim wrote: »
    I have very little confidence in this film tbh. As much as I loved CR and the Craig era at the start, I think it went badly off the rails and just keeps derailing and this will be the climactic train wreck. Once again we’ve got more “continuation”, which has been the worst and most misguided thing about the Craig era. Once more we’re going to have a reluctant Craig Bond forced to return to the job (how much of the Craig era has Bond actually been 007? Like 30%?). There’s the new female 007 and “reflect the MeToo movement” nonsense, so queue the themes of Bond being old, obsolete, old fashioned, sexist etc because that hasn’t gotten tired yet /s. we’ve probably got another “personal” story with the return of Madeleine and brother Blofeld. We’ve got all the behind the scenes dramas with the rewrites and director changes etc and I’m not left with a positive feeling about this one, at all.

    I completely agree.
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    Radical feminism and PC culture.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited July 2019 Posts: 8,569
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Because race-baiting and pandering is bad for everyone. Tokenizing a certain race is belittling to them and takes away roles meant to be played by members of the original race of the character. Again, why do it all? If the character is written a certain way there is no reason to change accept to pander to a specific audience and to virtue signal.

    That’s not a terribly convincing argument. For example Jeffrey Wright got the part of Felix because Craig recommended him due to having worked with him on another project, which can be said of a lot of other cast members like Ben Whishaw and Ana de Armas.

    Casting people of color isn’t always down to tokenism/PC.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,850
    I think swapping races or genders happens way to much these days just to make a statement and appear "edgy". But at the same time I'm very happy with Jeffery wright as Felix and Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, as I was with Judi Dench as M back in the day.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I have no niggles so far. Everything is shaping up fine.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,569
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    I think swapping races or genders happens way to much these days just to make a statement and appear "edgy". But at the same time I'm very happy with Jeffery wright as Felix and Naomie Harris as Moneypenny, as I was with Judi Dench as M back in the day.

    Funnily Tarantino said if he did CR he would have cast Samuel L Jackson as Felix, which I could see work as Jackson has more of a jovial vibe like the Felix in the novels.


    Instead Jackson later went onto play Nick Fury, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    In a word no worry whatsover.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,508
    Still completely confident, yes.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,267
    100% behind it, all the way.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,948
    Since I’ve purposely avoided most of the production news, its’ hard for me to say. However, I do have concerns. The Craig era has been a strange one for me: equal parts invigorating and derivative - and the last half-hour of SP left a bad taste in my mouth.

    In addition, while I would like to think that Bond is above the franchise “fatigue” that seems to exist at the moment, it must be acknowledged that 58 years is a long time, and some younger viewers may see Bond as: ”….oh my father and grandfather were into that.

    I'll hope for the best, but I see a global take in the range of SP.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Funnily Tarantino said if he did CR he would have cast Samuel L Jackson as Felix, which I could see work as Jackson has more of a jovial vibe like the Felix in the novels.


    Instead Jackson later went onto play Nick Fury, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Jackson is too big a star to play Felix,It would have taken the focus off of Craig as Bond.
    I don't think it would have worked at all.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,837
    barryt007 wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Jackson is too big a star to play Felix,It would have taken the focus off of Craig as Bond.
    I don't think it would have worked at all.

    No, not Craig, Brosnan. Tarantino would have done CR with Brosnan. Funnily enough, I always thought he would choose Michael Madsen for Felix.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Univex wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    No, not Craig, Brosnan. Tarantino would have done CR with Brosnan. Funnily enough, I always thought he would choose Michael Madsen for Felix.

    Aaah I see,yes,Brosnan would make more sense,apologies matey.
  • AstonLotusAstonLotus
    Posts: 1,394
    00Agent wrote: »
    I'm 100% confident. What's the point of worrying? Not interested in any 'production issues' or tabloid drivel. Eon keeps marching on and everything seems to be fine. I want to celebrate the shoot of another Bond film, as it has become such a rare event sadly. I am still planing to go to Matera in August or September, and hopefully see some action there.

    Everyone involved seems to be 100% engaged and I believe this will be an amazing finished product.

    Of course i thought the same of Spectre and left the cinema scratching my head, so sure there is always the possibility that it will suck but i rather choose to believe it will be a classic. Daniel's whole Reputation as Bond is on the line here and he knows it. If this film sucks, his era will be seen by the public as average. He could have stepped down after Spectre and he came back because he thought it was a film worth doing.

    Such a ridiculous statement.DC came back for only one reason...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Not very confidant in the film at all to be honest.Its taken them nearly five years to get another movie together,and even then they have no solid official title,directors fired and hired at a very late stage,a script thats being rewritten by a trendy feminist writer to please the #Metoo crazies ( should have been called #Weallknew ),Craig getting injured,a dangerous explosion on set that could have killed people because proper safety precautions were not taken.

    If thats not bad enough,you have them bringing back BLOWfeld,which really should have just been ignored given how badly that was received by fans last time.

    Its amazing to think that in between the last Bond film,and the next Bond film,a complete Star Wars trilogy will have come and gone as well as several spin offs.

    Bottom line after all this time,they should have retired Craig from the role ( especially after slashmywristsgate ) and started fresh.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,571
    I think the answer to the thread title might well be yes? :))
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,267
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Such a ridiculous statement.DC came back for only one reason...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Not very confidant in the film at all to be honest.Its taken them nearly five years to get another movie together,and even then they have no solid official title,directors fired and hired at a very late stage,a script thats being rewritten by a trendy feminist writer to please the #Metoo crazies ( should have been called #Weallknew ),Craig getting injured,a dangerous explosion on set that could have killed people because proper safety precautions were not taken.

    If thats not bad enough,you have them bringing back BLOWfeld,which really should have just been ignored given how badly that was received by fans last time.

    Its amazing to think that in between the last Bond film,and the next Bond film,a complete Star Wars trilogy will have come and gone as well as several spin offs.

    Bottom line after all this time,they should have retired Craig from the role ( especially after slashmywristsgate ) and started fresh.

    Well, it seems like you've had your mind made up for a while now. Sorry to hear that.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,186
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Such a ridiculous statement.DC came back for only one reason...$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    Yes, well, you comment is much more sensible i suppose.
    ezgif-1-04f3c99cf8.gif
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,577
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »
    show previous quotes

    Well, it seems like you've had your mind made up for a while now. Sorry to hear that.

    I was going to say the same thing, but I also sense some bitterness and anger there as well
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,569
    Because no beloved Bond actor only came back for the money.
Sign In or Register to comment.