No Time to Die production thread (MINOR SPOILERS ALLOWED)

19729739759779781213

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,074
    Not trying to be controversial, just gave my approach and explained it in my own words.

    I'm definitely comfortable with the longtime Bond Girl phrase past, present, and future.

    Fair enough, I still don’t understand why Camille is one and Nomi isn’t in your mind.
  • belleswannbelleswann britain
    Posts: 34
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2020 Posts: 5,074
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.

    All true, but your point is a mystery to me. There are oft-unattainable body standards for men and women (mostly women) that make people who do not have bodies like Lea and Ana and Daniel feel shitty about themselves (mostly women again). It’s bad.
  • belleswannbelleswann britain
    Posts: 34
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.

    All true, but your point is a mystery to me.

    My point is Lea shouldn't be judged or less respected for posing nude or wearing tight clothes which I really didn't think needed pointing out in this day and age.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited December 2020 Posts: 6,590
    Contraband wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    @Contraband Reminds of the video from behind the scenes of No Time to Die...


    That's why I posted it. The trailer video also posted by me at the time. Filmed by Cary

    I hadn't seen this until now. The girl's got moves!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 5,923
    I’m watching Carlito’s Way. Sean Penn’s character is dangerously insulted by everything. Every-thing.

    Quite unlikable.

    By the way, Lea is incredibly sexy. Sensual. And she titillates.

    And as a heterosexual man who enjoys the human body, I can say—

    Daniel Craig is also incredibly sexy. Sensual. And titillates (perhaps my wife a little more than me, but....)


  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,590
    peter wrote: »
    I’m watching Carlito’s Way. Sean Penn’s character is dangerously insulted by everything. Every-thing.

    Quite unlikable.

    By the way, Lea is incredibly sexy. Sensual. And she titillates.

    And as a heterosexual man who enjoys the human body, I can say—

    Daniel Craig is also incredibly sexy. Sensual. And titillates (perhaps my wife a little more than me, but....)


    Firstly, cracking film. Secondly, good comment. I'm glad both you and your wife will be visually satisfied by NTTD.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 5,923
    @CraigMooreOHMSS — Carlito’s Way is holding beautifully.

    And so long as Craig doffs his top, my wife will be more than happy (guess what her favourite scene was in Casino Royale? (And I was also happy on this “new gaze” in a Bond film; gives the film a few more new dimensions)).
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 5,074
    belleswann wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.

    All true, but your point is a mystery to me.

    My point is Lea shouldn't be judged or less respected for posing nude or wearing tight clothes which I really didn't think needed pointing out in this day and age.

    Oh gotcha, then I agree with you.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,754
    Don’t know about everyone else, but the latest trailer that was released back in August/September keeps me so pumped for this movie. I just love the intensity of the music they use from 1:58 onwards. Wish it would be in the film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2020 Posts: 8,821
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.

    That's just not really true, no. I haven't seen Lynch having to resort to that in her shoots at all; I've been really impressed by how stylish and artistic they are.

    I pop into the 'women' thread and it's all
    x7YE3AX.jpg
    6KgMUFK.jpg

    But Lynch is more
    ES_wIQLXQAgmFRZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
    ETAJH5-WAAAxCfW?format=jpg&name=large

    One of them is more exploitative of sexuality if you ask me. And yeah, I have more respect for the one that doesn't have to resort to that.
    Yes it's a free world and she can do that if she wants to, but as it's a free world I'm also allowed to find it a bit cheap.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,590
    DonnyDB5 wrote: »
    Don’t know about everyone else, but the latest trailer that was released back in August/September keeps me so pumped for this movie. I just love the intensity of the music they use from 1:58 onwards. Wish it would be in the film.

    Yeah, that trailer is superb. I often find myself watching it during my lunch break with my headphones on full blast, even just for that music portion you mention.
  • belleswannbelleswann britain
    Posts: 34
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.

    That's just not really true, no. I haven't seen Lynch having to resort to that in her shoots at all; I've been really impressed by how stylish and artistic they are.

    I pop into the 'women' thread and it's all
    x7YE3AX.jpg
    6KgMUFK.jpg

    But Lynch is more
    ES_wIQLXQAgmFRZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
    ETAJH5-WAAAxCfW?format=jpg&name=large

    One of them is more exploitative of sexuality if you ask me. And yeah, I have more respect for the one that doesn't have to resort to that.
    Yes it's a free world and she can do that if she wants to, but as it's a free world I'm also allowed to find it a bit cheap.

    You can find it cheap if you want to but for me these kinds of comments shame a person for their sexuality and are quite sexist to me. Lashana, Ana, Daniel and Lea have all done many different photoshoots this year some more sexualized than others and I say that of each of them and none of them should be viewed less or shamed because you like certain ones better.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 5,923
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.

    That's just not really true, no. I haven't seen Lynch having to resort to that in her shoots at all; I've been really impressed by how stylish and artistic they are.

    I pop into the 'women' thread and it's all
    x7YE3AX.jpg
    6KgMUFK.jpg

    But Lynch is more
    ES_wIQLXQAgmFRZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
    ETAJH5-WAAAxCfW?format=jpg&name=large

    One of them is more exploitative of sexuality if you ask me. And yeah, I have more respect for the one that doesn't have to resort to that.
    Yes it's a free world and she can do that if she wants to, but as it's a free world I'm also allowed to find it a bit cheap.

    You can find it cheap if you want to but for me these kinds of comments shame a person for their sexuality and are quite sexist to me. Lashana, Ana, Daniel and Lea have all done many different photoshoots this year some more sexualized than others and I say that of each of them and none of them should be viewed less or shamed because you like certain ones better.

    Well said, @belleswann — she’s very comfortable in her skin, she’s confident. There’s no shame in celebrating the human form.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    edited December 2020 Posts: 2,951

    Cool pics. Nice find @MattiaDeVarti007

    Crew member took them, that's for sure. But how did they end up on his insta?!

    InmL08K.jpg
    1XDaK7p.jpg
    WTeUFlE.jpg
    ekYyQEN.jpg
  • belleswannbelleswann britain
    Posts: 34
    peter wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The ones you don't like you think don't even count as Bond girls? That seems odd. It's a bit someone denying that the Lotus Esprit is a Bond car because they don't like mid-engined cars.
    Hmm I didn't exactly say that.

    I said from what I've seen Nomi is not presented as a Bond Girl. I said more like a Leiter character, or now I'd say even closer to a Saunders type competing with or outright harassing Bond. At least initially arguing with Bond and obstructing him.

    • Bond Girl status is qualified by appearance, actions/activity.
    • Every prominent female role is considered a Bond Girl.

    So which approach applies prejudice.

    She's a main Bond woman; she gets top line billing just like every other one.

    How many bit-part actresses who don't get lines and just sit around looking pretty have been called 'Bond girls' over the years? Do you look through this book and cross the pages off saying "not a Bond girl, not a Bond girl, Bond girl, not a Bond girl, ... "
    :D

    515K5D59VQL._SX342_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    I guess it comes down to the label of "Bond Girl", what it means exactly, and why it's needed at all. It seems like characters like Camille and now Nomi are blurring the lines, which is a great thing.

    I'll ask my question to you again: you said Camille is a "Bond Girl", yet Nomi is not; where are the differences here that grant Camille this "title", but not Nomi?
    That's my take on how the Camille character is presented, as a potential love interest for Bond whether or not that's consummated.

    That's a pretty strange definition then. A Bond woman can be someone you think he might have potentially shagged, even though he most certainly didn't, but in Nomi's case that's unimaginable, even though we don't actually know if he does or not.

    Is it not just easier to go with the more standard definition i.e. a relatively young and attractive actress in a Bond movie is a Bond girl/woman?
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    belleswann wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    If your referring to “women being treated as sexual objects”, hopefully there are zero.

    I must say I slightly lose respect for Seydoux every time she does another photoshoot in skimpy outfits (or as we see this time, no outfit at all)- she does seem to use herself as a sex object quite a lot. That's her choice and everything, but it always strikes me how much cooler Lynch seems to be in hers.
    I think a large part of the Bond fandom *wants* Paloma to be one of these “Bond girls” because they fit their idea of what an attractive woman looks like, and it seems, very unfortunately, Lashana does not.

    Yeah it does feel a bit that way.

    I think it's a really tasteful picture and she looks beautiful. It is her choice and I don't think she should be judged for it, nudity isn't anything to be ashamed of and she shouldn't be less respected for it.

    I just think it's a bit of a shame she seems to feel she has to resort to reveal her figure and trying to titilate all the time. It's fine if she wants to do that, but equally it's my choice who I respect, not anyone else's.

    I don't think she is trying to titilate anyone. It is up to you but I don't remember you losing respect for Daniel when he was shirtless in GQ

    It's a fair point, but it's not every single shoot with him. And it's not like men face quite the same problems that women do in terms of being objectified: men and women aren't equal.

    But it's that reason why women do more nudity than men because it is expected

    That's not a good thing though.
    belleswann wrote: »
    and it isn't every shoot with Lea she has been on around a dozen magazines this year and this is the only one

    I don't think so; they're always getting posted here (maybe more the in thread about 007 women) and all of her shoots have seemed sexualised to me, this is something I've been feeling for a while every time one appears. This is the first one I've seen where she's not wearing anything at all, but all of the rest I've seen getting posted here have featured her in skimpies or wearing extremely tight clothes.
    belleswann wrote: »
    but my point is it wouldn't matter if it was every one for her or daniel craig because it's nothing either should feel ashamed of if they feel comfortable doing it and not exploited, men are never criticized as much as women for it because no, men and women are not treated equally.

    Yes, true, I just think it's a shame.
    It would be a good thing if men and women were viewed evenly but they are not and if you think her shoots have been sexualized and she wears tight clothes then so have Ana's and Daniel and Lashana's to a lesser extent, and in regards to tight clothing welcome to Craig's Skyfall wardrobe.

    That's just not really true, no. I haven't seen Lynch having to resort to that in her shoots at all; I've been really impressed by how stylish and artistic they are.

    I pop into the 'women' thread and it's all
    x7YE3AX.jpg
    6KgMUFK.jpg

    But Lynch is more
    ES_wIQLXQAgmFRZ?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
    ETAJH5-WAAAxCfW?format=jpg&name=large

    One of them is more exploitative of sexuality if you ask me. And yeah, I have more respect for the one that doesn't have to resort to that.
    Yes it's a free world and she can do that if she wants to, but as it's a free world I'm also allowed to find it a bit cheap.

    You can find it cheap if you want to but for me these kinds of comments shame a person for their sexuality and are quite sexist to me. Lashana, Ana, Daniel and Lea have all done many different photoshoots this year some more sexualized than others and I say that of each of them and none of them should be viewed less or shamed because you like certain ones better.

    Well said, @belleswann — she’s very comfortable in her skin, she’s confident. There’s no shame in celebrating the human form.

    Thank you. On another topic I haven't been on the forum long but really love all the information you guys find, it's nice to know people like the bonds as much as I do 😃
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,306
    Contraband wrote: »

    Cool pics. Nice find @MattiaDeVarti007

    Crew member took them, that's for sure. But how did they end up on his insta?!

    InmL08K.jpg
    1XDaK7p.jpg
    WTeUFlE.jpg
    ekYyQEN.jpg

    Both actors look so good in those costumes.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,328
    Well, well, well...a friend of mine turned my attention to the following, in regards to Safin's plot:
    Black Biology and stealth viruses

    He sent me several links on the topic, especially this one: https://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/bioterror117.html

    The important part from that link is here (pay particular attention to the last paragraph):
    "Black biology"

    If anthrax, smallpox and other "conventional" biological agents aren't frightening enough, Block also raises the specter of "black biology" -- a shadowy science in which microorganisms are genetically engineered for the sole purpose of creating novel weapons of terror.

    "The idea that anybody can brew this stuff in their garage vastly overstates the case," he says, "but any technology that can be used to insert genes into DNA can be used for either good or bad."

    Block points out that genetic maps of deadly viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms already are widely available in the public domain. Last summer, for example, a leading scientific journal published the entire genetic code for the cholera pathogen. And legitimate researchers are now in the process of mapping the genomes of more than 100 other microbes -- including the bacteria that cause anthrax, the plague and typhoid.

    Any scientist bent on destruction could use this information to attempt to clone extremely virulent strains of bacteria and viruses, Block contends.

    He also points out that there are plenty of underpaid microbiologists in the world who might be eager to work for unscrupulous clients -- producing incurable "designer diseases," such as penicillin-resistant anthrax, or "stealth viruses" that infect the host but remain silent until activated by some external trigger, such as exposure to a normally harmless chemical.

    I can't help but think that this is precisely what Safin is up to. And we may have our explanation as to what happens to the Cuba party goers.
  • DonnyDB5DonnyDB5 Buffalo, New York
    Posts: 1,754
    TripAces wrote: »
    Well, well, well...a friend of mine turned my attention to the following, in regards to Safin's plot:
    Black Biology and stealth viruses

    He sent me several links on the topic, especially this one: https://news.stanford.edu/pr/01/bioterror117.html

    The important part from that link is here (pay particular attention to the last paragraph):
    "Black biology"

    If anthrax, smallpox and other "conventional" biological agents aren't frightening enough, Block also raises the specter of "black biology" -- a shadowy science in which microorganisms are genetically engineered for the sole purpose of creating novel weapons of terror.

    "The idea that anybody can brew this stuff in their garage vastly overstates the case," he says, "but any technology that can be used to insert genes into DNA can be used for either good or bad."

    Block points out that genetic maps of deadly viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms already are widely available in the public domain. Last summer, for example, a leading scientific journal published the entire genetic code for the cholera pathogen. And legitimate researchers are now in the process of mapping the genomes of more than 100 other microbes -- including the bacteria that cause anthrax, the plague and typhoid.

    Any scientist bent on destruction could use this information to attempt to clone extremely virulent strains of bacteria and viruses, Block contends.

    He also points out that there are plenty of underpaid microbiologists in the world who might be eager to work for unscrupulous clients -- producing incurable "designer diseases," such as penicillin-resistant anthrax, or "stealth viruses" that infect the host but remain silent until activated by some external trigger, such as exposure to a normally harmless chemical.

    I can't help but think that this is precisely what Safin is up to. And we may have our explanation as to what happens to the Cuba party goers.

    Damn. This seems spot on. And this would reinforce the whole cloning aspect of the plot, in a more realistic manner.

    Perhaps it’s viruses Safin is cloning, and not human beings?
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,951
    Source: Seller on ebay

    tsh616I.jpg
    lPyTPaO.jpg
    CeYRV20.jpg
    JkQ3AaR.jpg
    1FgGvvZ.jpg
    tCvRGBX.jpg
    T0BPQWH.jpg
    gdNDELn.jpg
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2020 Posts: 11,760
    Cheers for the recent photos, guys.

    One of the other menus sold for GBP92 recently.
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    edited December 2020 Posts: 469
    Contraband wrote: »

    Cool pics. Nice find @MattiaDeVarti007

    Crew member took them, that's for sure. But how did they end up on his insta?!

    InmL08K.jpg
    1XDaK7p.jpg
    WTeUFlE.jpg
    ekYyQEN.jpg

    Interesting to note the 'scene 236' picture. It looks like the big control room in the lair after Bond kabooms it as seen in the trailer. So we see him go back to the room? For what reason? Or is it even that room? If so, it is very likely that we probably haven't seen anything as of yet from this room.

    Note that this is after Madeleine and Mathilde have been shipped off by Nomi - that happens in 235.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,951
    Contraband wrote: »

    Cool pics. Nice find @MattiaDeVarti007

    Crew member took them, that's for sure. But how did they end up on his insta?!

    InmL08K.jpg
    1XDaK7p.jpg
    WTeUFlE.jpg
    ekYyQEN.jpg

    Interesting to note the 'scene 236' picture. It looks like the big control room in the lair after Bond kabooms it as seen in the trailer. So we see him go back to the room? For what reason? Or is it even that room? If so, it is very likely that we probably haven't seen anything as of yet from this room.

    Note that this is after Madeleine and Mathilde have been shipped off by Nomi - that happens in 235.

    The submarine stage pic is also scene 236. I have a wider shot with that scene number on and prod. text.

    The only thing I know about the control room is that they built that set including a roof set behind 007-stage, according to the call sheets.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 11,760
    Anyone else getting GE/64 vibes from that control room?
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,951
    Wild theory: Someone suggested that this is Madeleine. If so, she's part of Safins gang breaking into the lab, kidnapping Valdo.

    Look at the eyes and height, is that Lea? It does look like a female

    CeYRV20.jpg
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    edited December 2020 Posts: 469
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wild theory: Someone suggested that this is Madeleine. If so, she's part of Safins gang breaking into the lab, kidnapping Valdo.

    Look at the eyes and height, is that Lea? It does look like a female

    CeYRV20.jpg

    Yeah, the eyes and stature look very female to me.

    I was wondering if this could be madeleine - -the eye shape is very familiar bt I dont think I can tell unless we have a better picture. I can maybe find out her height from props and if someone could give me a proper ID of her handgun - if the height matches Madeleine then this could be a big spoiler lmao.

    For reference, Lea Seydoux is 1.68M tall.


  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 2,951
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wild theory: Someone suggested that this is Madeleine. If so, she's part of Safins gang breaking into the lab, kidnapping Valdo.

    Look at the eyes and height, is that Lea? It does look like a female

    CeYRV20.jpg

    Yeah, the eyes and stature look very female to me.

    I was wondering if this could be madeleine - -the eye shape is very familiar bt I dont think I can tell unless we have a better picture. I can maybe find out her height from props and if someone could give me a proper ID of her handgun - if the height matches Madeleine then this could be a big spoiler lmao.

    For reference, Lea Seydoux is 1.68M tall.

    One of my twitterpals wrote this:

    "You're probabaly right. But I'm 100% that is Lea. Perhaps its just a sneaky cameo because she wanted to do some action. So it's probably not Madeleine Swann but it is Lea Seydoux. If that makes sense."

  • Posts: 300
    I had that thought when I first saw the photo today. The figure honestly doesn't look that tall for being a man
    Maybe it could be the secret Blofeld talks about?
  • phantomvicesphantomvices Mother Base
    edited December 2020 Posts: 469
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wild theory: Someone suggested that this is Madeleine. If so, she's part of Safins gang breaking into the lab, kidnapping Valdo.

    Look at the eyes and height, is that Lea? It does look like a female

    CeYRV20.jpg

    Yeah, the eyes and stature look very female to me.

    I was wondering if this could be madeleine - -the eye shape is very familiar bt I dont think I can tell unless we have a better picture. I can maybe find out her height from props and if someone could give me a proper ID of her handgun - if the height matches Madeleine then this could be a big spoiler lmao.

    For reference, Lea Seydoux is 1.68M tall.

    One of my twitterpals wrote this:

    "You're probabaly right. But I'm 100% that is Lea. Perhaps its just a sneaky cameo because she wanted to do some action. So it's probably not Madeleine Swann but it is Lea Seydoux. If that makes sense."
    I had that thought when I first saw the photo today. The figure honestly doesn't look that tall for being a man
    Maybe it could be the secret Blofeld talks about?

    clone theory's looking kinda nice rn 👀👀👀

    If it's truly a cameo then she'd likely be completely covered up. Although we do see her fire a gun in the forest, so it's not like she's getting no action (literally :)) ), but if not, then this would likely be intentional - hiring a female agent extra wouldn't be hard given the NTTD budget.


    unknown.png?width=719&height=295
    The only screenshot I could find of our potential Mads agent with the pom pom hat was this - as you can see, can't really tell much. I'll keep digging, but it'll be hard. However in saying this, given that because she is almost intentionally obfuscated in the trailer, this could also mean that Madeleine IS in the heist scene - given the trailers have already shown Primo and Valdo there, we know they aren't shy about showing the characters in the heist scene so that could be another clue...
Sign In or Register to comment.