No Time to Die Spoilers from post #1449 onward

The Late Late Show · 17-07-2019 10:53pm

budgemook wrote: »

Really not seeing the issue here.

- Bond is retired.
- New 007, a woman, has to get him out of retirement
- Bond has sex with her within 10 minutes
- Some token strong independent woman bits thrown in
- Bond saves the day proving that men are the best

This is how it will go and doesn't sound too different to any of the recent Bond movies to me.

This is how it will work out you will find. Anyone know what the name of this film is? Cannot remember such a long wait to hear the name?

OldRio · 17-07-2019 11:28pm

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

It's only clever if the film is rubbish and they need clickbait culture war nonsense to create a buzz. James Bond films shouldn't need to do such a thing. Save that for remakes of Ghostbusters and other crap that needed to.

You're missing the point. We're creating the hype. They started the rumour. We are adding to it. Clever.

Calhoun · 17-07-2019 11:40pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Additional point: Let’s stop treating James Bond as some completely sacred object at the same time. It lost that right as Bond surfed a bloody tsunami and the series overseers allowed it to become the most consistent franchise for blatant product placement in blockbuster history. Its legacy is well soured by several outright bad films and countless shots of Sony products

I don't think any character should ever be truly sacred but I am getting tired of the lazy tacked on approach to writing that is just taking a label or changing a character despite its source just so it resonates with a certain audience. Then leaving it at that without having a really decent story.

Additionally it's a two way street and as much as their are crazy fans that get outraged there are also those on in Hollywood that bait a response.

I am not saying any of this has happened here but their is legitimate criticism to some of the decisions being taken right now but what I don't get is why people don't just vote with their wallet.

eviltimeban · 18-07-2019 10:22am

I don't really care if 007 is male, female, black, white, whatever - as long as the movie is good and I'm entertained.

Hector Savage · 18-07-2019 11:52am

Calhoun wrote: »

It could just be a ploy as they are like trying to bait the haters by doing this but plan the next bond to be like Idris Elba.

Idris Elba would be a great Bond imo ...

But I think Bond has had it's day, it was written in the 50's/60's by Ian Fleming, world has changed a lot since then - instead of trying to modernise it just make original films with new characters, can still be set around the spy world.

Worked with Jason Bourne.

And as for the PCness of making 007 a black female, is this to "correct" the sexism/racism of the older films ?
They are what they are you can't change history - you can however make new original films with strong female leads - take 3 billboards outside Ebbing MI for example - fantastic film , original, strong female characters, there was no need to we write an older male dominated film for that.

Compare that with the 2016 version of Ghostbusters .... yeah ..

Maybe they should remake the Thing (1982) aswell as that film had no women.

They could call it "The Yoke".

I don't care about a new spy film with a super black lady as the best British MI6 agent ever .... just don't call it a James Bond film.

As I said, it's had it's day , there hasn't been a good Bond film since Casino Royale and that was because it was based on Flemings first (i think) Bond novel - and stuck reasonably well to it.

batgoat · 18-07-2019 12:26pm

conorhal wrote: »

Hush now, it's progress and you're supposed to be happy about 'progress', towards what who can say but everybody's supposed to dance around the obvious agenda pushing.
Speaking of hilariously woke agenda pushing, I see the license holders for the Bond series in comics, Dynamite have hired Vita Ayala and Danny Lore to relaunch the series, two non binary women of colour with F all experience in comics to write it.
Well Ayala has a little bit of experience, she did work on race baiter extraordinaire, Kwanza Osajyefo's Black AF series about a world in which only black people have superpowers, with all the subtlety you'd expect.
And people want to claim this cultural vandalism isn't agenda driven?

It almost makes you wish you could get Jim Davidson to make The Handmaids Tale just to give them a taste of their own medicine.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/james-bond-comic-coming-binary-creators-color-vita-ayala-danny-lore-1224588

Ta-Nehisi Coates didn't have any experience writing comics when he reinvented Black Panther and that is critically acclaimed.

ancapailldorcha · 18-07-2019 12:33pm

It's the Conor McGregor strategy. Make a change and the PC gone mad brigade will still see it so they can whine about it while others hail the change as a sign of progress. Like most people, I couldn't give a sh*t, frankly. I'll wait for the reviews though if it antagonises the professionally victimised, it might be worth seeing for that alone.

mikhail · 18-07-2019 5:39pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

Maybe they should remake the Thing (1982) aswell as that film had no women.

They could call it "The Yoke".

They made a prequel, starring Mary Elizabeth Winsted. It wasn't well received, but I liked it.

pixelburp · 18-07-2019 5:46pm

That's a weird one to pull out the gender-flip outrage card; The Thing, but with only women, sounds like a really interesting idea!

What made the '82 film such a classic was how it was as much about paranoid Alpha Males tearing into each other, as it was gross Rob Bottin FX. Penned and shot with an improvisational style, and an all-female Thing would be a thrilling study of women clashing with each other.

Calhoun · 19-07-2019 12:23am

They are definitely playing the marketing game , there is an article in the mirror today saying bond girl is banned and now should be bond woman.

They are either building hype or the film is flawed and they want to distract from it.

The Late Late Show · 19-07-2019 12:36am

Calhoun wrote: »

They are definitely playing the marketing game , there is an article in the mirror today saying bond girl is banned and now should be bond woman.

They are either building hype or the film is flawed and they want to distract from it.

I would not hold out too much hope about this film being anything groundbreaking. It may well be a good entertaining romp or it may be a tediously flawed lead balloon but my guess it will be a rehash of things we have seen before. Perhaps the wife of Bond being killed and the angry Bond out for revenge which is On Her Majesty's Secret Service ending and Diamonds Are Forever start made longer.

It is shaping up as a sort of a rogue revenge thriller with an independent Bond on the trail of revenge against those who killed his wife. Licence To Kill then basically! Throw in some nods to Game of Thrones and Handmaid's along the way to keep up to date and of course tie the villain of this film into the story arc of ALL the other 4 Daniel Craig films. The new 007 will be on the trail of Bond but sides with him in the end to take down the bad guys, Sudden Impact so!!

Tony EH · 19-07-2019 7:59am

pixelburp wrote: »

That's a weird one to pull out the gender-flip outrage card; The Thing, but with only women, sounds like a really interesting idea!

What made the '82 film such a classic was how it was as much about paranoid Alpha Males tearing into each other, as it was gross Rob Bottin FX. Penned and shot with an improvisational style, and an all-female Thing would be a thrilling study of women clashing with each other.

Yeh, but 1982's 'The Thing' felt authentic. Those characters felt real, which is why it worked and why their actions come off as believable.

2022's 'The Thing' would be a load of Hollywood female tickboxes trying to act like men and not feeling in any way authentic at all.

But, they kind of did a semi gender swap 'The Thing' in 2011, where Mary Elizabeth Winstead was put in the hero role. That 'The Thing' not only had her in Antarctica, but also another female too on the Norwegian team. This would have been practically unheard of in 1982.

These days, while the population of research teams are still heavily leaning toward males, there are many more females involved. I met a tiny Chinese/American girl a few years ago who's work involved 6 months in Antarctica and the rest of the year away, which she spent in New York. She certainly didn't fit the impression one would get if they'd only watched 'The Thing' from 1982.

So, while...er..."things" are vastly different these days, with regards to the gender makeup of Antarctic research personnel, I still wouldn't expect Hollywood to reflect that realistically in an all female version of 'The Thing'.

Strangely enough, John Carpenter's film is very popular down there. :pac:

pixelburp · 19-07-2019 9:20am

Tony EH wrote: »

Yeh, but 1982's 'The Thing' felt authentic. Those characters felt real, which is why it worked and why their actions come off as believable.

2022's 'The Thing' would be a load of Hollywood female tickboxes trying to act like men and not feeling in any way authentic at all.

Well that just depends on the scriptwriter; wouldn't be that hard to source a good writer who can properly recreate the psychology of alpha females as they break down, and butt heads against each other. Ain't that big a mystery. The Thing is a gussied up "base under siege" / "killer in our midst" story, it's an inherently malleable trope because you can & should be able to swap around the cast and create new dynamics for tension.

What you're describing though is not a problem particular to genders, but a problem specific to the nature of the Hollywood machine: the moment any sleeper / indie / arthouse film becomes a hit, inevitably the claws of studio interference make recreating that tumble-down authenticity impossible.

It's the weird inverse-law of Hollywood: something cheap becomes a huge hit, therefore the sequel must have 5 times the budget? Blumhouse seem to be the only studio who have realised this approach is nuts, and make their sequels just as cheaply / stingily as the original.

2011's The Thing could have been a good movie, but studio interference forced the production to apply CGI to all its FX; there's an interesting interview with two leads of the then 'practical' driven FX debt: executives visited the set to see how things were coming along. The FX guys showed off some work for a scene, where IIRC someone's face was meant to split in two. The executives freaked out because, to paraphrase the FX guys, you could see the pistons & wires controlling the prop at a certain angle. Despite reassurances they would shoot from an angle that hid all this, it wasn't good enough. Fast forward to the final film and CGI monsters that ruined the feel.

Tony EH · 19-07-2019 10:21am

pixelburp wrote: »

Well that just depends on the scriptwriter; wouldn't be that hard to source a good writer

Hmmm, I don't know about that. The quality of screenwriting in mainstream Hollywood films has plunged to pretty depressing depths in the last 10 years or so. It's got to be one of the worst aspects of film making today. It's an art that becoming more and more of a secondary effort.

pixelburp wrote: »

2011's The Thing could have been a good movie, but studio interference forced the production to apply CGI to all its FX; there's an interesting interview with two leads of the then 'practical' driven FX debt: executives visited the set to see how things were coming along. The FX guys showed off some work for a scene, where IIRC someone's face was meant to split in two. The executives freaked out because, to paraphrase the FX guys, you could see the pistons & wires controlling the prop at a certain angle. Despite reassurances they would shoot from an angle that hid all this, it wasn't good enough. Fast forward to the final film and CGI monsters that ruined the feel.

Unlike a lot of folk, I'm not actually that down on the 2011 prequel. In fact I quite like it in many ways. The interference on the animatronics aside, it wasn't a bad effort really.

It was just never, ever, going to be able to compete with Carpenter's masterpiece, no matter what.

On the practical effects, though, from what I've seen of the behind the scenes footage, even if the studio hadn't insisted on splashing CGI all over them, they still wouldn't have lived up to Rob Bottin's creations.

FunLover18 · 19-07-2019 3:54pm

I've always said the best way to make the Bond franchise more diverse and representative (if that's what you want) is to ditch James Bond himself and make it a 007 franchise. It's just a codename that can be assigned to any agent who has proved themselves worthy, like M or Q.

I don't have much hope for this film anyway after Skyfall and Spectre. I think Craig should have moved on. I am intered to see what Phoebe Waller Bridge brings to the script though.

Calhoun · 19-07-2019 5:18pm

I think that would be a way of moving forward with the series, i wouldn't like to get rid of James Bond permanently but you could tell different stories about different agents like you say (something like the Kingsman).

I would love a movie set around Q or M now that you mention it, Judy Dench hands down is probably my favorite M.

Acosta · 20-07-2019 3:11pm

I lost a lot of interest in this movie when Danny Boyle departed from the it. Even if at least that means an Ed Sheeran cameo is now unlikely.
The best bond movies are the ones that are a little different. OHMSS, Licence To Kill, Casino Royale.

Calhoun · 20-07-2019 3:54pm

Acosta wrote: »

I lost a lot of interest in this movie when Danny Boyle departed from the it. Even if at least that means an Ed Sheeran cameo is now unlikely.
The best bond movies are the ones that are a little different. OHMSS, Licence To Kill, Casino Royale.

I didn't know about that cameo lol.

Acosta · 20-07-2019 4:46pm

Calhoun wrote: »

I didn't know about that cameo lol.

I'm only messing, but I wouldn't have been surprised as Boyle had him on his 2012 Olympic opening ceremony and that new twee movie about everyone forgetting about The Beatles. The toe-curling awful Sam Smyth did the last one. The songs have all gone a bit X factor of late unfortunately.

batgoat · 20-07-2019 4:54pm

Acosta wrote: »

I'm only messing, but I wouldn't have been surprised as Boyle had him on his 2012 Olympic opening ceremony and that new twee movie about everyone forgetting about The Beatles. The toe-curling awful Sam Smyth did the last one. The songs have all gone a bit X factor of late unfortunately.

I did like the Chris Cornell theme, felt it was one of the better ones as of late.

Acosta · 20-07-2019 5:25pm

batgoat wrote: »

I did like the Chris Cornell theme, felt it was one of the better ones as of late.

Yeah, as did I. Not a great song, but a good one and it fits the movie well. That title sequence was very cool. Probably my favourite.

The one I was most disappointed with was The World Is Not Enough by Garbage because I was expecting so much more. I remember the first time I heard Stupid Girl thinking it would make a class Bond song. So I was very happy when they got to do one, but it was fairly flat.

Most Bond songs up to that point are great, but as with mainstream pop music in general, for the most part they've gone pretty bad since the turn of the century.

Calhoun · 20-07-2019 11:50pm

Acosta wrote: »

I'm only messing, but I wouldn't have been surprised as Boyle had him on his 2012 Olympic opening ceremony and that new twee movie about everyone forgetting about The Beatles. The toe-curling awful Sam Smyth did the last one. The songs have all gone a bit X factor of late unfortunately.

After seeing Ed in the tomato ketchup add i believed it hook line and sinker.

eviltimeban · 21-07-2019 10:15am

Acosta wrote: »

I'm only messing, but I wouldn't have been surprised as Boyle had him on his 2012 Olympic opening ceremony and that new twee movie about everyone forgetting about The Beatles. The toe-curling awful Sam Smyth did the last one. The songs have all gone a bit X factor of late unfortunately.

Have you heard "Spectre" by Radiohead? They were supposed to do the theme and recorded the track, orchestra and everything, but it wasn't used. Thing is, I can kind of see why. While it's a great song, it's a little morose for a Bond theme (thought the strings at the end are very Bond-esque).

CinemaGuy45 · 21-07-2019 10:26am

Bond is a white male who lost his parents in a car crash.
He finds comfort in casual sex romps and drinking.

This kind of thing is an insult to black people and women also as film makers are saying no woman or black person can play an original character all they can do is highjack an exciting franchise and subvert it.

How far do we go with this kind of rubbish?

Can 007 be played by somebody in a wheelchair?
Can 007 have bladder control problems?
Can 007 be deaf or blind?
Can 007 be played by somebody with Down syndrome?
Can 007 have Tourette syndrome?

I have no doubt my post is going to be lambasted by virtue signalling people but at least I am being honest.

I also have no doubt this film is going to flop hard and so it should.

Odd I never ever see outrage about the lack of women or minority groups on building sites or frontline combat roles.

World War 2 was fought by WHITE MEN and yet we have video games showing women and blacks fighting the war instead.

As a white man I will not be paying to watch a franchise that tries to go out of its way to demonise the very group that has kept this franchise alive for all these years.

From the franchise that gave us Pussy Galore to a franchise for leftist pussies RIP James Bond.:(

Star Wars died not so long ago also.

johnny_ultimate · 21-07-2019 10:33am

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I have no doubt my post is going to be lambasted by virtue signalling people but at least I am being honest.

LMAO you’re not being honest though because James Bond is being played by Daniel Craig :pac:

batgoat · 21-07-2019 10:35am

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

World War 2 was fought by WHITE MEN and yet we have video games showing women and blacks fighting the war instead.

Erm, World War 2 had 125,000 black soldiers fighting in it... Outside of that, your post was complete outraged nonsense...

ancapailldorcha · 21-07-2019 10:37am

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

From the franchise that gave us Pussy Galore to a franchise for leftist pussies RIP James Bond.:(

And yet you're the one wailing on an internet forum.

johnny_ultimate · 21-07-2019 10:40am

Anti-SJW crowd: “Look at those SJWs always getting outraged over everything!”

Also anti-SJW crowd: *incomprehensible, frothing-at-the-mouth outrage over nothing*

pixelburp · 21-07-2019 10:44am

What the actual F wall of insecure, bleating nonsense did I just read? Oh no, forced diversity is going to get us and ... ... Uh? Make us play videogames with black people.

Jesus Christ. It's a Sunday, go have an ice cream.

And I'm a white man. I don't feel demonised, but then I'm not so insecure in my fandom I can't deal with some black faces in a film franchise about space wizards.

CinemaGuy45 · 21-07-2019 10:45am

batgoat wrote: »

Erm, World War 2 had 125,000 black soldiers fighting in it... As a white man you are incredibly easy to offend..

Thats the thing I am not offended Bond was a franchise that I enjoyed I went to the cinema to see it and I have the full collection of movies.

Bond was the man every man wanted to be and the man every woman wanted to be with.;)

Far from being offended I am just disappointed there will be no more James Bond films as I really enjoyed them.

I will not be spending my time and money on this new woke rubbish as it does not speak to me and I strongly suspect like Ghostbuster 2016 and Oceans Eight this thing will flop hard.

This is a thread in the films section and the thread is about Bond 25 I am posing here because I really enjoyed and own copies of the other 24 Bond movies.

Not offended in the least I will just move on however I suspect the usual suspects will be crying foul when this franchise hits the iceberg and sinks.

No Time to Die **Spoilers from post #1449 onward**

Comments

No Time to Die Spoilers from post #1449 onward