No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

14974985005025031044

Comments

  • Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    Pretty much. Though Lucia was a waste of Bellucci, I was extremely relieved that her character didn’t get killed off because that had become an overused trope after three films. I don’t want to see the sacrificial lamb in Bond for a very long while.
  • 00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable.
    There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place.
    James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    I think you’re missing the point. He’s not suggesting the Bond character treat women better, but that the films do. Take how the scene of Silva’s capture ends. It feels tone deaf to play the scene off with a victorious tone when Severine’s dead body is in the background.

    To paraphrase what Phoebe Waller-Bridge said “the films have to treat the women better, but Bond doesn't have to, he has to remain himself”. So I think it’s safe to say we’re not gonna be getting a “kinder, gentler Bond”.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,234
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable.
    There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place.
    James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    I think you’re missing the point. He’s not suggesting the Bond character treat women better, but that the films do. Take how the scene of Silva’s capture ends. It feels tone deaf to play the scene off with a victorious tone when Severine’s dead body is in the background.

    To paraphrase what Phoebe Waller-Bridge said “the films have to treat the women better, but Bond doesn't have to, he has to remain himself”. So I think it’s safe to say we’re not gonna be getting a “kinder, gentler Bond”.

    Not to mention that Moneypenny gets demoted in SF for failing (don't even get me started on Severine). Whereas Bond in QoS gets reinstated for failing (in CR). I think there is room for more nuanced female characters in NTTD.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,159
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable.
    There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place.
    James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    I think you’re missing the point. He’s not suggesting the Bond character treat women better, but that the films do. Take how the scene of Silva’s capture ends. It feels tone deaf to play the scene off with a victorious tone when Severine’s dead body is in the background.

    To paraphrase what Phoebe Waller-Bridge said “the films have to treat the women better, but Bond doesn't have to, he has to remain himself”. So I think it’s safe to say we’re not gonna be getting a “kinder, gentler Bond”.

    I'm ok with Daniel's portrayal. He's not even playing him as a full blown chauvinist (except for the first half of CR where he went all out) but i do agree that women can be portrayed better. The difference is that they improved ALOT in the Craig era. Even Phoebe said as much, and she said she just wants to keep it up. There is no need to, as many people seem to believe, dial up the feminism. I believe it will be very subtle in NTTD.
    Also i love most of the female characters in the Craig era, Severine is one of my faves. But i do understand the trapings of the franchise and the need for sacrificial lambs. People feeling shitty for Severine is a good thing, thats the whole Intention. Bond Deals with Killers (like himself), people die, shit happens. What do you want? Rainbows and flowers? Why not turn him vegan while were at it. Eating animals is cruel.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,185
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable.
    There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place.
    James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    I think you’re missing the point. He’s not suggesting the Bond character treat women better, but that the films do. Take how the scene of Silva’s capture ends. It feels tone deaf to play the scene off with a victorious tone when Severine’s dead body is in the background.

    To paraphrase what Phoebe Waller-Bridge said “the films have to treat the women better, but Bond doesn't have to, he has to remain himself”. So I think it’s safe to say we’re not gonna be getting a “kinder, gentler Bond”.

    Also, increased screentime does not automatically mean "better characters". Obviously.

    Some of the best characters in cinema are those who made an impact in a limited time. There's no reason why this can't apply to secondary and even tertiary female characters in Bond films.

    It's one of the reasons why Harris' Moneypenny was far more effective in SF as opposed to SP.
  • Posts: 15,071
    I just want memorable characters, be it female, male, sacrificial lambs, major or minor.

    We know they can provide us with memorable female characters, but they sure don't do that every time. They did it perfectly in CR (even Solange worked out fine IMO), but Fields in QOS, Lucia in SP and (because of limited screen time) Sévérine in SF, they've showed that there's room for improvement.
  • echo wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable.
    There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place.
    James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    I think you’re missing the point. He’s not suggesting the Bond character treat women better, but that the films do. Take how the scene of Silva’s capture ends. It feels tone deaf to play the scene off with a victorious tone when Severine’s dead body is in the background.

    To paraphrase what Phoebe Waller-Bridge said “the films have to treat the women better, but Bond doesn't have to, he has to remain himself”. So I think it’s safe to say we’re not gonna be getting a “kinder, gentler Bond”.

    Not to mention that Moneypenny gets demoted in SF for failing (don't even get me started on Severine). Whereas Bond in QoS gets reinstated for failing (in CR). I think there is room for more nuanced female characters in NTTD.

    She wasn’t demoted, she stepped down on her own accord because she listened to Bond’s “the field is not for everybody”. When she became a secretary, I was hoping that really meant that should also double as M’s personal bodyguard/agent so we’d still see her get in the action when the situation called for it. Disappointingly she didn’t really do much in SP. Was kind of pushed aside like poor Bill Tanner.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited November 2019 Posts: 4,125
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable. There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place. James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    I'm not asking for triple screen time or asking James Bond not to be the main character. I think all these suggestions about James Bond not seeming like the protagonist in NTTD will be completely wrong, and of course we have secondary characters, and I'm not saying Solange was acted badly or written badly in the sense of dialogue, but I think her involvement and death (while cool) didn't really have any real effect on the plot or Bond or the situation at hand... same with Fields.

    ...and I will say that I personally find that while these male characters you mention may not have any memorable lines, their deaths or involvement usually have an impact on the plot in a bigger way than a lot of these female characters. Alex Dimitrios for example. He played a significant role in the plot and moved the story forward, like Vesper Lynd does, and both these characters do it without detracting from James in any way, which shows it is possible. But I will say there are examples of male characters that I find unfortunately underwritten and have no real effect on anything, like Mr. Hinx for example.

    ...also I'm in no way saying that James Bond has to be a beacon of moral standards, or that he should be watered down, and that's not what they're (EON and co.) are saying either. And about him as person, so? Yes, he's a killer, a drinker and a chauvinist, but what about him as person, means that the female characters can't be more than just people to sleep with and be killed off for the sake of another character? It's possible for characters like Alex Dimitrios, Vesper Lynd and Tracy? So why can't it be the case for all the other characters as well? And the main conversation is about females because they're the majority that are being consistently portrayed more as sex objects and sacrificial lambs. The same argument applies to this... "we wanna see Bond do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms", that's got nothing to do and should have no effect on the development and position of female characters in the franchise?

    And I also must add I don't think the franchise is sexist. I just have my own opinion on what I've seen from a franchise I love and cherish, and we can't deny the existence of pitfalls that happen with female characters that's just growing repetitive and tired and outdated in the film industry today, because a whole sleuth of parodies, discussions and other stuff that immediately pinpoints the issue, do why deny its existence? You could probably even see Fiona Volpe's little speech as an early awareness of the way these female characters are written, from the filmmakers themselves as early as the 60s and the fourth film in the franchise.

    ...and to sum up, those comments you replied to were all response to someone who wanted all the female characters to once again fall into the pitfalls. They just want Bond to sleep with Paloma, Nomi to die as a traitor (probably cause they don't want her to be 007 for long), and Madeleine to kick it as well. So two dead Bond girls and one whose major interesting quality will be whether Bond gets in her pants? Really? These are just examples of ways to truly mess up female characters... I'm not saying you can't have Bond sleep with anyone or females can't die but if it's just to get Bond to have sex or it's just because you wanna get rid of the character, then why write the character in the first place. That's boring. Creating interesting and dynamic characters with real motive and development behind their choices and involvement is exciting, for me anyway.

    EDIT: And thanks @MakeshiftPython, @CraigMooreOHMSS, and @Torgeirtrap, can always rely on you guys to help get my message across ;)
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 833
    Some people here like hysterically speaking in hyperbole. Simmer down, folks - you haven't even seen real footage of this film yet for Criminy's sake.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,159
    Denbigh wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable. There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place. James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    I'm not asking for triple screen time or asking James Bond not to be the main character. I think all these suggestions about James Bond not seeming like the protagonist in NTTD will be completely wrong, and of course we have secondary characters, and I'm not saying Solange was acted badly or written badly in the sense of dialogue, but I think her involvement and death (while cool) didn't really have any real effect on the plot or Bond or the situation at hand... same with Fields.

    Might not have been as relevant to the plot but Bond reacting to Solanges death was a huge character moment that really made you think about this guy. If there was one scene in all of Craigs films where i would really like to know what is going on in his head in that moment, it would be this one. I've been thinking a lot about it actually.
    ...and I will say that I personally find that while these male characters you mention may not have any memorable lines, their deaths or involvement usually have an impact on the plot in a bigger way than a lot of these female characters. Alex Dimitrios for example. He played a significant role in the plot and moved the story forward, like Vesper Lynd does, and both these characters without detracting from James in any way, which shows it is possible.

    Again, i'm not a plot guy, i am much more interested in characters. And the characterization in the Craig films was much better than previously.
    ...also I'm in no way saying that James Bond has to be a beacon of moral standards, or that he should be watered down, and that's not what they're (EON and co.) are saying either. And about him as person, so? Yes, he's a killer, a drinker and a chauvinist, but what about him as person, means that the female characters can't be more than just people to sleep with and be killed off for the sake of another character? It's possible for characters like Alex Dimitrios, Vesper Lynd and Tracy? So why can't it be the case for all the other characters as well? And the main conversation is about females because they're the majority that are being consistently portrayed more as sex objects and sacrificial lambs. The same argument applies to this... "we wanna see Bond do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms", that's got nothing to do and should have no effect on the development and position of female characters in the franchise?

    And I also must add I don't think the franchise is sexist. I just have my own opinion on what I've seen from a franchise I love and cherish, and we can't deny the existence of pitfalls that happen with female characters that's just growing repetitive and tired and outdated in the film industry today, because a whole sleuth of parodies, discussions and other stuff that immediately pinpoints the issue. You could probably even see Fiona Volpe's little speech as an early awareness of the way these female characters are written, from the filmmakers themselves as early as the 60s and the fourth film in the franchise.

    ...and to sum up, those comments you replied to were all response to someone who wanted all the female characters to once again fall into the pitfalls. They just want Bond to sleep with Paloma, Nomi to die as a traitor (probably cause they don't want her to be 007 for long), and Madeleine to kick it as well. So two dead Bond girls and one whose major interesting quality will be whether Bond gets in her pants? Really? These are just examples of ways to truly mess up female characters... I'm not saying you can't have Bond sleep with anyone or females can't die but if it's just to get Bond to have sex or it's just because you wanna get rid of the character, then why write the character in the first place. That's boring. Creating interesting and dynamic characters with real motive and development behind their choices and involvement is exciting, for me anyway.

    Well i agree to an extend, but one thing i don't understand at all is how people could look at the last 20 years of Bond and still complain about lack of development on the female character front??

    The problem i have with that, and in my opinion rather obvious is, that NOTHING will EVER be satisfactory. It will never be good enough and that seriously annoys me.

    The Bond franchise has a certain forumula, we all know this. It's like a house of cards, shift it too much and it all falls apart. It has a set of rules. Bond goes on mission > Bond meets girl > girl either supports him or dies > etc. etc. etc.

    Still they have made tremendous progress in making the females more [strong,independent,self reliant, intelligent yada yada] and more fleshed out, especially if you compare them to the novels, but also to the 60's and 70's films, even though there were many good ones among them. That's because women have changed anyway.

    But to act like nothing has improved makes all that progress worthless.
    And i don't even mean you, i mean gals like Naomi and Ana. They don't seem to realize how they f themselves over with their comments like "never been done before" "strongest females ever" blah blah blah.
    Because by the time Bond 26 comes around, THEY will be the brainless bimbos from the past and nothing will have changed. If this franchise wants to move forward, the girls really need to learn how to praise what came before (or just watch a couple Bond films to begin with)

    The only woman that made sensible comments about NTTD so far is Phoebe, thankfully she is also the one with the most power in regards to the female characters.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited November 2019 Posts: 6,185
    The thing is....the actors are just playing the game to hype up what is coming next. They're not paid to praise what has come before. They're just doing a job - telling people what they think they want to hear while validating their parts as much as they can.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,683
    The thing is....the actors are just playing the game to hype up what is coming next. They're not paid to praise what has come before. They're just doing a job - telling people what they think they want to hear while validating their parts as much as they can.

    Yup, it’s really just part of the hype machine that people will forget years after the movie came out when it’s just another installment out of many that came before and after. Nobody today is berating QOS today just because Olga remarked about how she’s unlike any leading lady that came before. So I see no sense in being upset when new actresses are given the same old talking points that have been made ever since the beginning of time. It’s no different than filmmakers claiming “this is the best Bond yet”. What else are they supposed to say? “My character isn’t as well developed as Honey Ryder”? “Not the best Bond movie we’ve made”?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,185
    The thing is....the actors are just playing the game to hype up what is coming next. They're not paid to praise what has come before. They're just doing a job - telling people what they think they want to hear while validating their parts as much as they can.

    Yup, it’s really just part of the hype machine that people will forget years after the movie came out when it’s just another installment out of many that came before and after. Nobody today is berating QOS today just because Olga remarked about how she’s unlike any leading lady that came before. So I see no sense in being upset when new actresses are given the same old talking points that have been made ever since the beginning of time. It’s no different than filmmakers claiming “this is the best Bond yet”. What else are they supposed to say? “My character isn’t as well developed as Honey Ryder”? “Not the best Bond movie we’ve made”?

    "We did alright, but honestly, it could have been better. Oh well, there's always next time!"
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,159
    The thing is....the actors are just playing the game to hype up what is coming next. They're not paid to praise what has come before. They're just doing a job - telling people what they think they want to hear.

    That's a possibility. Nobody knows why they say what they say.
    I posted a quote from Roger here a couple weeks ago in which he said that all new Bond girls do it... suggesting that they are told to do so.

    If i had to take a guess i would say they do it to market the film to women.

    I don't see how they would appeal to a long time Bond fan though.

    It used to be "my female character is very smart and independent". And we would go "umm, ok. cool."

    Now it's "strongest females ever! Bond is totally respectful now. Never been done before. Tremendous."

    And the tabloids are having a field day with it.

    Is this smart marketing? I guess we will see in April 2020.
    Just saying. Still hoping for the best though.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited November 2019 Posts: 4,125
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ...and to sum up, those comments you replied to were all response to someone who wanted all the female characters to once again fall into the pitfalls. They just want Bond to sleep with Paloma, Nomi to die as a traitor (probably cause they don't want her to be 007 for long), and Madeleine to kick it as well. So two dead Bond girls and one whose major interesting quality will be whether Bond gets in her pants? Really? These are just examples of ways to truly mess up female characters... I'm not saying you can't have Bond sleep with anyone or females can't die but if it's just to get Bond to have sex or it's just because you wanna get rid of the character, then why write the character in the first place. That's boring. Creating interesting and dynamic characters with real motive and development behind their choices and involvement is exciting, for me anyway.
    But to act like nothing has improved makes all that progress worthless. And i don't even mean you, i mean gals like Naomi and Ana. They don't seem to realize how they f themselves over with their comments like "never been done before" "strongest females ever" blah blah blah. Because by the time Bond 26 comes around, THEY will be the brainless bimbos from the past and nothing will have changed. If this franchise wants to move forward, the girls really need to learn how to praise what came before (or just watch a couple Bond films to begin with) The only woman that made sensible comments about NTTD so far is Phoebe, thankfully she is also the one with the most power in regards to the female characters.
    Then in that case it comes down to the way the industry works in the sense of marketing and trying to sell what you're trying to sell. As @CraigMooreOHMSS mentions above, they're doing their job and trying to sell the film as much as possible, which can mean things are sometimes glazed over or just quickly addressed? It's basically them trying to explain what I've just said to you in two sentences or less before we move onto the next question. Things get lost in translation, especially in print media.
  • 00Agent wrote: »
    The thing is....the actors are just playing the game to hype up what is coming next. They're not paid to praise what has come before. They're just doing a job - telling people what they think they want to hear.

    That's a possibility. Nobody knows why they say what they say.
    I posted a quote from Roger here a couple weeks ago in which he said that all new Bond girls do it... suggesting that they are told to do so.

    If i had to take a guess i would say they do it to market the film to women.

    I don't see how they would appeal to a long time Bond fan though.

    It used to be "my female character is very smart and independent". And we would go "umm, ok. cool."

    Now it's "strongest females ever! Bond is totally respectful now. Never been done before. Tremendous."

    And the tabloids are having a field day with it.

    Is this smart marketing? I guess we will see in April 2020.
    Just saying. Still hoping for the best though.

    As you alluded, this is really being sold to the broad audience, the normies. They don’t need to try to hype up Bond fans, we’ve already been hyped up for a new film.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 15,071
    Denbigh wrote: »
    ...and to sum up, those comments you replied to were all response to someone who wanted all the female characters to once again fall into the pitfalls. They just want Bond to sleep with Paloma, Nomi to die as a traitor (probably cause they don't want her to be 007 for long), and Madeleine to kick it as well. So two dead Bond girls and one whose major interesting quality will be whether Bond gets in her pants? Really? These are just examples of ways to truly mess up female characters... I'm not saying you can't have Bond sleep with anyone or females can't die but if it's just to get Bond to have sex or it's just because you wanna get rid of the character, then why write the character in the first place. That's boring. Creating interesting and dynamic characters with real motive and development behind their choices and involvement is exciting, for me anyway.

    Definitely agree with this. I certainly hope that the trio of Bond girls in NTTD will bring more to the story than being little more than bed partners and/or traitors – the latter of which we had in SP. Going by their own comments though, it looks like there's more to their characters.

    The one thing that would bug me the most, would be if they go down the sacrificial lamb route again. We've seen that plenty of times in the franchise, but we've had enough of these kid of characters in the Craig era already.
  • The sacrificial lamb I disliked the most was Mathis. Contrast that with Kerim Bey that actually left you sad, whereas “Mathis” dying was less sad and more frustrating.
  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 485
    Dont know what to make of this.
    Rob Blake seems way more of an unknown to be working on No Time To Die but his credits include producing for Ellie Goulding.
    https://instagram.com/stories/robblakemusic/2181208764711815835?igshid=y3yhysv8sd42
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    00Agent wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    octofinger wrote: »
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I’m not liking the sound of this at all.

    I hope bond seduces Armas , Lynch turns traitor and bond kills her, Madeline meets her demise and Moneypenny stays at her desk or does light field work

    I'll say it: this might suggest that your attitudes toward women are a little off-kilter.
    It’s exactly the attitude that has meant the franchise has needed serious overhauling in the scriptwriting process. You can call me “woke” or whatever you want but you all know how much of a Bond fan I am, and I think the decision to write better female characters, because of previous characters and ongoing attitudes by audiences, is completely on the nose, and this whole process has just proved it even further in my eyes.

    I’m in no way saying that the franchise has never had any strong female characters, but with every Vesper there’s a Solange, and with every Tracy there’s a Fields. Although the sacrificial lambs and the underdeveloped female characters only there for their looks completely outweigh the stronger characters we could mention.

    And? What do you suggest? Give every female character tripple the screentime? Why even focus on Bond if we can make the films just about the 'strong female characters'.
    This is not going to change. Movies have secondary characters, and less important ones than that. That's it (also i thought Solange was a very well written and acted character). Why not complain about all the male characters that get killed after 3 minutes of screentime with next to no memorable line? You will find many more of those.

    People are buying into tabloid trash about the franchise being sexist.

    James Bond is NOT supposed to be a beacon of moral standards. That would be the most boring thing imaginable.
    There is no point in watering the character down and make him save just to appease people who never gave a f about this franchise in the first place.
    James Bond is a Killer, he's a drinker, and he's a chauvinist. Thats why we keep watching him, believe it or not. We wanna see him do stuff that isn't necessarily normal by social norms. If i want a moral lesson about perfect, respectful relationships i go and watch my friends. I don't need to pay for a movie Ticket. It's real life and it's boring.

    +1 spot on. I always think of it this way when women's fantasy stories (twilight/Fifty shades) haven't changed much, same old plot and story and they are doing great then why can't male fantasy remain same the way masculine men like it. Feminity is good but masculinity needs to be woked.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    edited November 2019 Posts: 7,273
    The character I'm most hoping doesn't get lost in the shuffle is Rami Malek, as I think he has the potential to be a great Bond Villain. Problem is that with all the focus on the women, Madeline and Nomi who both will feature quite heavily, I fear that Bond and Maleks character might not have the time for a genuine rivalry to foster like in previous entries. Usually Bond and the villain will dine together or play some sort of competitive game like cards or sport. One of the biggest misteps with SP for me is that the rivalry between Bond and Blofeld was all implied based on their history, rather than demonstrated in any great depth. I never really felt like Bond had overcome a great adversary by the end, despite how much the "connection" between the two was built up. This is a trick which EON have pulled a lot lately, as Silva and Greene never really locked horns in any meaningful way on screen. Silva had the target practice, but that was more taunting Bond than playing on level terms. Some of the best scenes in Bond movies from the past are where Bond gets to outfox the villain, and the villain has to lick his wounds, and learns not to underestimate Bond. I hope we get something like that this time, and it isn't pushed out so that more time can be spent on Lynch's character.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited November 2019 Posts: 2,568
    In the history of the franchise the rivalry between Bond and Blofeld has never been demonstrated in any great depth, even tho the character is universally regarded as the definitive Bond arch-nemesis. In SP they tried, with uneven results.

    Hopefully Malek will steal the show.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 11,425
    Yes the curse of Blofeld - he's usually really rubbish.

    Going back to Craig's recent interviews. Has any previous Bond complained about how tiring it is to make a Bond movie as much as Craig? Has he got M.E. or something?

    The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,683
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes the curse of Blofeld - he's usually really rubbish.

    Going back to Craig's recent interviews. Has any previous Bond complained about how tiring it is to make a Bond movie as much as Craig? Has he got M.E. or something?

    The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

    Moore shared similar sentiments during the MR production. He was the same age as Craig during that as well.

    I'll have to look it up but I recall Moore and Brosnan defending Craig's remarks in that they sympathized with him because they know first hand how tiring it can be to work on these kind of films with such a long stretches of production.

    EDIT: Found Brosnan's comments over Craig

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bons-24-brosnan-reviews-spectre
    If anyone in the world could empathize with Daniel Craig when he made his 'I'd rather slash my wrists' comments straight after wrapping a Bond movie, it was someone who had also wrapped four Bond movies. "I think the guy was just fairly banjaxed by playing it. By the time you finish making a Bond movie, you don't want to hear the name, see the name or have anything to do with it because you just want to go to ground," explained Brosnan. "Maybe I'll make another one. I don't know. Give him another year off here, and he'll be ready to rock and roll for sure."
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited November 2019 Posts: 5,159
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes the curse of Blofeld - he's usually really rubbish.

    Going back to Craig's recent interviews. Has any previous Bond complained about how tiring it is to make a Bond movie as much as Craig? Has he got M.E. or something?

    The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

    Moore shared similar sentiments during the MR production. He was the same age as Craig during that as well.

    I'll have to look it up but I recall Moore and Brosnan defending Craig's remarks in that they sympathized with him because they know first hand how tiring it can be to work on these kind of films with such a long stretches of production.

    EDIT: Found Brosnan's comments over Craig

    https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bons-24-brosnan-reviews-spectre
    If anyone in the world could empathize with Daniel Craig when he made his 'I'd rather slash my wrists' comments straight after wrapping a Bond movie, it was someone who had also wrapped four Bond movies. "I think the guy was just fairly banjaxed by playing it. By the time you finish making a Bond movie, you don't want to hear the name, see the name or have anything to do with it because you just want to go to ground," explained Brosnan. "Maybe I'll make another one. I don't know. Give him another year off here, and he'll be ready to rock and roll for sure."

    That's true, and Roger praised Craig many times for the stunts and his involvement in them, saying that it's more extreme than what he used to do.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Just seems to be a recurring theme in DC's comments. I'm so tired etc. I just don't recall any other movie star talking like this. I mean I'm sure it's hard work but does he want sympathy? Just not sure what message he is trying to convey there.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I don’t want to hear any complaints then if nomi gets a chunk of sreen time in Jamaica or Norway instead of bond.
    In GE, both Natalya and Xenia had their screentime without Bond, didn´t they?

  • edited November 2019 Posts: 5,200
    Getafix wrote: »
    Just seems to be a recurring theme in DC's comments. I'm so tired etc. I just don't recall any other movie star talking like this. I mean I'm sure it's hard work but does he want sympathy? Just not sure what message he is trying to convey there.

    Hey, I've been having the same inclination - saying I'm tired all the time, and I really am in need of a break - and I'm usually not the one to complain. So maybe he's just really bloody tired, physically and mentally. Many times saying you are exhausted over and over is just a way to sublimate it, just like a huge yawn. Or maybe he's just an old hypochondriac hag in need for attention and care :-D Anyway, I identify with him on this. Wish I didn't. But right now, I really do. The holidays can't come soon enough.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 6,334
    I think if you also bear in mind that Craig is more invested in these films than any of his predecessors (with the exception of Connery with Never Say Never Again) in that he’s actually got a production role, plus he’s up at all hours, up to his neck in water, at heights, trying to look as good as he possibly can at all times, with the full attention of everyone on him at all times, it seems pretty reasonable to crave some time to yourself after that.
  • Posts: 5,200
    mtm wrote: »
    I think if you also bear in mind that Craig is more invested in these films than any of his predecessors (with the exception of Connery with Never Say Never Again) in that he’s actually got a production role, plus he’s up at all hours, up to his neck in water, at heights, trying to look as good as he possibly can at all times, with the full attention of everyone on him at all times, it seems pretty reasonable to crave some time to yourself after that.

    I concur.

    But...his comments are not very...English, you see, It's not as if one should complain, ever. After all, he's an example of British fortitude, right? ;) Not saying he should have that effusive Welsh character, or a flamboyant Scottish one, but the English shouldn't complain, and should remain stoic over it all :) With a stiff upper lip and a vertical stance.

    Kidding, of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.