I think Jodie Whittaker should be free soon to take up the role. 😀
Now that you mention Whittaker
I think Peter Dinklage would make a great Bond, similar shortcomings as Cruise but cameras can do anything these days :)
$900m as the breakeven number is being bandied about, add in all the wasted marketing costs, and a funny one the product placement, there is supposed to be a Nokia phone in it which is now out of date, the film was supposed to come out before the phone lol
A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
They did reshoots a while back, specifically to address the "out of date" product placement that was to be in the original theatrical release.
As to the projections, well for comparison F9 is sitting at $716 million so a few months onward and maybe yeah; not a crazy target (though I've ranted before about the insanity of 1 billion dollars being the benchmark for blockbuster success)
its the marketing side that always gets me, the film cost ~250m to make but the marketing is well in excess of $200m, its like the whole industry is competing with itself but making it harder to make a profit. 900m seems conservative if they are down possibly 500m on day 1
Hey, there are whole books written about Hollywood Economics and the counter-intuitive scaling that goes on. And then every now and again you'll see a small, modestly budgeted film do gangbusters (like the Jumanji reboot, Joker or Escape Room, to name three) and yet Hollywood keeps swinging for these $200+ million budgets that have to make a billion to stay even.
The marketing budget must be hugely inflated having to keep the buzz going for an extra 18 months.
But it's not as if there's a number they need to hit to guarantee a sequel (unlike Dune, for example). There will be another Bond movie.
Apparently the director of this one has referred to Sean Connery's Bond as a 'rapist'...
going by that logic the whole women's "romance" section might need to be rebranded lol
"Basically" a rapist. And he's not wrong.
Yeh I fail to see a problem with this. The old Bond movies are renowned for their terrible treatment of female characters, this is hardly new.
The wording smells clickbait strong, but if you watch the old movies, Connery's Bond was ... oof. Very forceful at times. Thinking especially of the barn scene in Goldfinger; the kiss with Pussy Galore (Jesus, this sure ain't High Art folks) wasn't entirely consensual. Like, he was charming to a point but Bond was gonna get it, one way or the other.
Contextually, many movies of that era weren't any better, heroes often forcing themselves on the romantic target (my beloved North by Northwest, for instance, wasn't that far off that tone of "I'm going to kiss you know, stop fighting it"). Not many of those old films remain box office gold though - so they endure continuous retrospective review. Just par for the course.
wait until you hear about all the people he's killed!
Don't do that. It's not about absolutes, or trying to cancel Bond. Just that Connery could be a bit of a shít.
Rewatched the Craig movies in the lead up to the new one, and there's plenty of the same kind of thing. Finger sucking in Casino Royale, boat shower scene in Skyfall, pinning Monica Bellucci against a wall in Spectre... Craig's Bond is as much of a forceful creep as anything in the old movies.
In the CR shower scene, he is sucking the blood off her fingers, it's weird but I always read it as him taking the burden onto himself.
The other examples are definitely creepy especially after your one in Skyfall had just told him about her history as a child sex slave. The Bond franchise is still learning.
He really needed to suck her fingers to clean the blood off, under a running shower? It was creepy as.
She says to him "it won't come off", it's unclear in the shot if there is actually blood on there hands. It's is weird I won't deny it but I don't think it's meant to be overly sexual, it's made clear that it doesn't lead to anything.
Not the dress uniform we're used to seeing Bond in.
Hmm, the guy obviously doesnt understand the character of Bond if he is coming out with stuff like that.
He shouldnt be left near directing a Bond film if thats his belief.
This new film sounds like its going to be a complete car crash.
4 main female characters, two black, one lesbian, one now 007.
I'm getting a really bad vibe, Bond is like a reckless bold boy who needs to be mothered by all these independent strong women.
Has Craig had some plastic surgey in the last few years, his face looks odd.
He looks like a fairly ordinary, 53-year-old man to me; don't forget Casino Royale was 15 years ago now ... when Craig was 38. That's a significant era for men to age across.
What exactly is the maximum allowed number of main female characters? 2.75? 3.33? Just checking for future reference.
Please explain the character of Bond to me.
His face looks a bit rubbery and worn.
Cheeks are very puffed up.
I suppose he is maintaining a low body fat percentage for promotional stuff which might make his face look more worn.
The short hair doesnt help either.
It seems he had some plastic surgery in 2008 for injuries sustained whilst filming Quantum of Solace and there are rumoours he had more in 2018.
Your one from fleabag was heavily involved in the script which probably adds a lot to the female influence we’re getting
I especially like the threat of shooting Bond in the knee, his good one, take that white patriarchy 🙃
On Wittertainment the other week Simon Mayo said he had been offered an interview with Craig, but not access to the film. It's a longstanding rule of that parish that he sees films before interviews. He said things may change, hopefully they let him see it.
Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.
Some people seem very vexed with the amount of women (some of whom a black!!) in a film they haven't seen.
Does that say more about the film, or the commentator?