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

1356750

Comments

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,547
    I would have zero concerns if it weren't for the Spectre leftovers being carried over to this film.

    However I too am hoping there isn't some passing of the torch to Nomi.
    If Nomi is given the 007 codename for the portion of the film that Bond is off active service, it wouldn't be a bad idea. However, I highly doubt there will be a passing of the torche to her character. I think Bond will re-earn his 007 codename towards the end of the film, before the climax.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 9,135
    Word.
  • Posts: 653
    jake24 wrote: »
    I would have zero concerns if it weren't for the Spectre leftovers being carried over to this film.

    However I too am hoping there isn't some passing of the torch to Nomi.
    If Nomi is given the 007 codename for the portion of the film that Bond is off active service, it wouldn't be a bad idea. However, I highly doubt there will be a passing of the torche to her character. I think Bond will re-earn his 007 codename towards the end of the film, before the climax.
    That sounds good to me.
  • Posts: 2,531
    At the risk of sounding negative, I'm neither confident nor the opposite. The pics/videos look great but they still don't say much as to the final outcome of the movie. I've seen some great pics of earlier Bond movies and the movie hasn't lived up to these.


    I have to remember to not read the writing under these pics and to merely look at the latter. :)
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred James Bond Will Return
    Posts: 1,181
    I see absolutely no reason to worry at this point in time. Unless the teaser trailer reveals
    Cloned Blofeld in drag
    we're alright. ;)
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 15,556
    Adding Blofeld to my worries for this film. This was the last thing I wanted for Bond 25. They ruined the character in SP, and unlike most here on the forum it seems, I really didn't want them to include a scene or two with the character.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 3,306
    Personally, I don't share the same worries as some do here about the return of Blofeld. Just because the exalted-one (Mendes) ballsed up his character first time round, it doesn't necessarily mean that CJF will repeat the same mistake again in B25. Even Waltz was dissatisfied with his own portrayal of Blofeld in SP, laying the blame at Mendes' feet by his veiled critique of his character. Waltz said: "I cannot claim that I’ve really nailed Blofeld,” he said. “Overall, it held water and was okay. But it wasn’t what I’ve been looking for. I was searching for more inspiration. An actor can only be really good when there are shared possibilities." Not that I think Waltz will be given as much screentime as before, I still trust CJF to make amends for Logan and Mendes' mishandling of the character in SP.

    I'd say my own worries stem from how woke this Bond movie will go. We're seeing it now with the current Terminator: Dark Fate, which is getting negative feedback not helped by director Tim Miller labelling anyone critical of his movie as a misogynistic internet troll, forgetting that the previous Terminator series had a very strong female lead character played by Linda Hamilton which the so-called misogynists were perfectly happy with. We're also talking about a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has an off-screen reputation as a bit of a misogynist himself. It's my understanding that the backlash of Dark Fate doesn't stem from men not liking a female strong lead, but by killing off John Conner early in the movie and replacing him with a Mary Sue character. It seems the current political flavour of Hollywood is to make their big budget movies all about female empowerment and diversity, at the same time writing any white guy as a dolt, while ignoring the concept of delivering a good story that strikes a balance, as did the original two Terminator movies. Even the third managed to do that. The thing that I'm really surprised about by Miller's outburst was Hollywood doesn't seem to have learned anything from Paul Feig when he said exactly the same thing in support of his own gargantuan Ghostbusters (2016) flop. Fast-forward to flops such as Men In Black: International virtue-signalling with it's person-in-black, etc, and Dark Phoenix's “the women are always saving the men around here. You might want to think about changing the name to X-Women” and you already have a recipe for disaster.

    I don't have a crystal ball so I can't say whether Dark Fate will be a box office hit or a dud, but the portents certainly indicate it's another ticking BO time bomb, especially as Miller seems determined to alienate the original core fanbase. Of course, time will tell, but who is going to be interested in this movie apart from its core fans?

    So how does that translate to B25? I don't have enough information on this movie to say which way it will go yet, but with the current Hollywood trend to commit harry carry by continuing down this path of self-destruction, it could seep into B25 and tarnish its end product. Again, I don't know, but I'd lie if I didn't think it was a concern.
  • Posts: 536
    If they don't retcon "Brofeld" I hope they just ignore it and don't expand on it. I also hope Bond doesn't meet his maker because I really really really really really really don't want another hard reboot. I hope this movie ends like any other Bond movie so Craig (or whoever) can slide into B26 as if it happened right after Die Another Day. I'm sick of origin stories and "dark pasts coming back to haunt them."
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited July 2019 Posts: 3,461
    Why on Earth they should retcon the foster brother angle? Move on people.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 536
    @matt_u Because it was the stupidest possible backstory they could have ever imagined for Blofeld and it cheapens the whole motivation behind the villains in the preceding films.

    LeChiffre, kill Bond cause Daddy didn't love me.
    Greene, kill Bond cause Daddy didn't love me.
    Silva, kill M cause it will make Bond sad because my Daddy loved him more than me.

    The ONLY thing it answers, imo, is how Silva had an army at his disposal.
  • Posts: 3,306
    In all honesty @TopGearJB007, I don't think the new director or writers will want to revisit that stupid Franz Oberhauser backstory nor the author of all his pain nonsense that Mendes introduced as a cheap gimmick to pull the wool over our eyes. I'll think they will just go with the concept that Waltz is now Ernst Stavro Blofeld and that's that. Probably the same way they'll quietly drop all that Nine Eyes guff as well, which was meant to reflect the real 'Five Eyes' exchange of general intelligence that's now been revealed to be a total failure.
  • Posts: 536
    If they never mention it ever again, I could live with it. If they do a soft reboot after Craig leaves and still use Blofeld, and never mention it again, I could live with it.

    Even a single cheeky reference to it will be too much.

    I think Bond himself blocked the whole brother thing out of his mind because he started calling him ESB immediately after the drill scene.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 3,306
    I agree @TopGearJB007. I don't think it'll ever be mentioned again. Eon just wanted to do a J.J. Abrams and subvert our expectations by pretending Waltz wasn't Blofeld like Abrams did with Cumberbatch as Khan. It didn't do Star Trek Into Darkness any favours and didn't do SP any either.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,461
    @matt_u Because it was the stupidest possible backstory they could have ever imagined for Blofeld and it cheapens the whole motivation behind the villains in the preceding films.

    LeChiffre, kill Bond cause Daddy didn't love me.
    Greene, kill Bond cause Daddy didn't love me.
    Silva, kill M cause it will make Bond sad because my Daddy loved him more than me.


    The ONLY thing it answers, imo, is how Silva had an army at his disposal.

    Wrong.

    Blofeld explicitly says that he started his path to “destroy” Bond’s world only AFTER Bond started to interfere with his business, that always came first for him. Blofeld never searched directly for Bond. He was Bond that given his work crossed paths with him, forcing Blofeld to sadistically toy with this guy the hated when he was young.

    Nowhere is implied that LeChiffre wants Bond dead because of his past with Blofeld. Neither Greene. He was just interfering with SPECTRE business and they wanted him dead for the same reasons any other villain wanted Bond dead. Regarding Silva, HE was the one who wanted M dead. Blofeld just gave Silva the resources to fulfill his vengeance in order to gain a double victory. Having Vesper and M dead were always consequences, in the case of Vesper even indirect because she committed suicide knowing SPECTRE would’ve killed her anyway, of a bigger master plan driven by business. Nowhere having them killed was the MAIN purpose from Blofeld’s perspective.

    All this drama regarding the foster brother angle has been blown out of proportions by many people inhere. Actually, there are tons of Bond villains of the past with even more ridiculous motivations. Like a fan favorite like Alec, who searched revenge towards the Brits just because during the WW2 his race was betrayed. Come on. Or Silva, because “mommy was really bad”.

    People seems to forget that most of Blofeld’s actions were done just for business. Toying with Bond was just a creepy collateral damage of bigger events.

    Anyway, regarding 25 they don’t need retcon anything, since the “shadowy author of Bond’s pain” plot has already been closed in SP. So it doesn’t even makes sense to mention it.
  • Posts: 536
    I already admitted they probably don't need to retcon anything. Just ignore it for the rest of eternity.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 3,461
    Yes, fine.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,726
    In SPECTRE, once Blofeld revealed his name Bond never referred to him as anything else. From then on he was just Blofeld. I suspect the new film will take on that approach as well. Blofeld's only beef with Bond will be for something more immediate: putting his organization in disarray and for being put in prison. I now wonder if Malek will be revealed to be a former employee of SPECTRE.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 784
    I wouldn't say I'm especially worried - the bits we've seen so far look good. I'm not crazy about de Armas or Lynch but they're fine. If anything I'm concerned about the many hands on the script - that usually doesn't augur well, but I'm willing to wait and be pleasantly surprised. It might also be getting a bit overstuffed in terms of locations and characters but there again we shall see.
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 2,531
    bondsum wrote: »
    Personally, I don't share the same worries as some do here about the return of Blofeld. Just because the exalted-one (Mendes) ballsed up his character first time round, it doesn't necessarily mean that CJF will repeat the same mistake again in B25. Even Waltz was dissatisfied with his own portrayal of Blofeld in SP, laying the blame at Mendes' feet by his veiled critique of his character. Waltz said: "I cannot claim that I’ve really nailed Blofeld,” he said. “Overall, it held water and was okay. But it wasn’t what I’ve been looking for. I was searching for more inspiration. An actor can only be really good when there are shared possibilities." Not that I think Waltz will be given as much screentime as before, I still trust CJF to make amends for Logan and Mendes' mishandling of the character in SP.

    I'd say my own worries stem from how woke this Bond movie will go. We're seeing it now with the current Terminator: Dark Fate, which is getting negative feedback not helped by director Tim Miller labelling anyone critical of his movie as a misogynistic internet troll, forgetting that the previous Terminator series had a very strong female lead character played by Linda Hamilton which the so-called misogynists were perfectly happy with. We're also talking about a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has an off-screen reputation as a bit of a misogynist himself. It's my understanding that the backlash of Dark Fate doesn't stem from men not liking a female strong lead, but by killing off John Conner early in the movie and replacing him with a Mary Sue character. It seems the current political flavour of Hollywood is to make their big budget movies all about female empowerment and diversity, at the same time writing any white guy as a dolt, while ignoring the concept of delivering a good story that strikes a balance, as did the original two Terminator movies. Even the third managed to do that. The thing that I'm really surprised about by Miller's outburst was Hollywood doesn't seem to have learned anything from Paul Feig when he said exactly the same thing in support of his own gargantuan Ghostbusters (2016) flop. Fast-forward to flops such as Men In Black: International virtue-signalling with it's person-in-black, etc, and Dark Phoenix's “the women are always saving the men around here. You might want to think about changing the name to X-Women” and you already have a recipe for disaster.

    I don't have a crystal ball so I can't say whether Dark Fate will be a box office hit or a dud, but the portents certainly indicate it's another ticking BO time bomb, especially as Miller seems determined to alienate the original core fanbase. Of course, time will tell, but who is going to be interested in this movie apart from its core fans?

    So how does that translate to B25? I don't have enough information on this movie to say which way it will go yet, but with the current Hollywood trend to commit harry carry by continuing down this path of self-destruction, it could seep into B25 and tarnish its end product. Again, I don't know, but I'd lie if I didn't think it was a concern.

    Yeah, this is what I was thinking. I'm sure Waltz will atleast go to the effort to exude something unique in his performance this time around. It makes no sense for him to not to.


    I just hope the scene doesn't come across too much like that other movie.


    What? They killed off John Connor?! Yeah, unfortunately we live in a society now where "girl power" must be rammed down our throats.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 3,561
    I'm in the confident fan side of things. I really like the teaser footage we got. Nice vibe to it, the music seemed fresh and well suited for the footage. I like the look of Craig and how he looks ready to rock and roll. I have lots of confidence in Cary to deliver a great movie.

    I just hope the title is something that has some creativity and some Fleming touch. Enough with Die in the title. Lets see something that truly reflects Bond.
  • Posts: 650
    Is anyone else worried there may be too many characters in this film?
  • Posts: 2,531
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    Is anyone else worried there may be too many characters in this film?

    It's something I've thought about. Maybe the less interesting ones will have little screentime.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,214
    Despite my concerns, I think the contemporary feel will be attractive to the younger generation and that's good in keeping the series fresh
  • edited July 2019 Posts: 1,080
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    My biggest concern is that Bond will get "woke" and go down the same road as Dr. Who, Star Wars, Star Trek, and other franchise that have become feminist/SJW propaganda machines. Looking at the cast it is starting to feel that way. Maybe it's just the director's thing to hire black actors but the diversity level of this film just feels like tokenism, something Bond has now suffered from for decades.

    We had to have a female M in the 90s, had to make MP black, Felix Leiter black, now we may have a black female MI6 agent (or main Bond girl depending on how things shake out), and other cast members who fill some quota. Sure, the location in Jamaica means there will be a higher percentage of black people but is this a decision to improve the story or keep make the PC Nazis happy? I dunno. I will hope for the best but if Bond goes down this road I'm done with the series.

    So... black people don’t deserve the same opportunities as white people?

    And seriously, Star Trek? That’s a franchise that has called for diversity since 1966 with its multiethnic casts, and has been largely SJW. It never had a perfect track record (look at the treatment of Janice Rand in “The Enemy Within”), but a large part of it’s appeal is showing humanity embracing diversity. Even Spock’s IDIC emblem literally stands for “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”.

    Black people have all the opportunities everyone else does. But STEALING roles from white people is wrong. Would you be okay with Shaft being played by a white guy? Or Wonder Woman played by a Mexican man? Why is that any different than race-bending roles originally created as white?

    No, ST is not about SJW. It's about exploring the universe as one species and that humanity is no longer concerned with race, identity politics, etc. Now it's the opposite. The left is absolutely obsessed with race, gender, and specific traits people have no power over to change in themselves. For ST, those things didn't matter; people are people and anyone can do anything. The modern world (mainly due to liberals) has skewed this idea into being the focus of everything.
  • Posts: 1,080
    bondsum wrote: »
    Personally, I don't share the same worries as some do here about the return of Blofeld. Just because the exalted-one (Mendes) ballsed up his character first time round, it doesn't necessarily mean that CJF will repeat the same mistake again in B25. Even Waltz was dissatisfied with his own portrayal of Blofeld in SP, laying the blame at Mendes' feet by his veiled critique of his character. Waltz said: "I cannot claim that I’ve really nailed Blofeld,” he said. “Overall, it held water and was okay. But it wasn’t what I’ve been looking for. I was searching for more inspiration. An actor can only be really good when there are shared possibilities." Not that I think Waltz will be given as much screentime as before, I still trust CJF to make amends for Logan and Mendes' mishandling of the character in SP.

    I'd say my own worries stem from how woke this Bond movie will go. We're seeing it now with the current Terminator: Dark Fate, which is getting negative feedback not helped by director Tim Miller labelling anyone critical of his movie as a misogynistic internet troll, forgetting that the previous Terminator series had a very strong female lead character played by Linda Hamilton which the so-called misogynists were perfectly happy with. We're also talking about a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has an off-screen reputation as a bit of a misogynist himself. It's my understanding that the backlash of Dark Fate doesn't stem from men not liking a female strong lead, but by killing off John Conner early in the movie and replacing him with a Mary Sue character. It seems the current political flavour of Hollywood is to make their big budget movies all about female empowerment and diversity, at the same time writing any white guy as a dolt, while ignoring the concept of delivering a good story that strikes a balance, as did the original two Terminator movies. Even the third managed to do that. The thing that I'm really surprised about by Miller's outburst was Hollywood doesn't seem to have learned anything from Paul Feig when he said exactly the same thing in support of his own gargantuan Ghostbusters (2016) flop. Fast-forward to flops such as Men In Black: International virtue-signalling with it's person-in-black, etc, and Dark Phoenix's “the women are always saving the men around here. You might want to think about changing the name to X-Women” and you already have a recipe for disaster.

    I don't have a crystal ball so I can't say whether Dark Fate will be a box office hit or a dud, but the portents certainly indicate it's another ticking BO time bomb, especially as Miller seems determined to alienate the original core fanbase. Of course, time will tell, but who is going to be interested in this movie apart from its core fans?

    So how does that translate to B25? I don't have enough information on this movie to say which way it will go yet, but with the current Hollywood trend to commit harry carry by continuing down this path of self-destruction, it could seep into B25 and tarnish its end product. Again, I don't know, but I'd lie if I didn't think it was a concern.

    Bond 25 will be woke and go down this path. All evidence points this way.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe "I need a year off" Craig
    Posts: 7,305
    I had my worries for Bond 25 back in 2016. As soon as Craig officially announced he was returning it was a process of acceptance that this movie would not be for me. It's like watching a sport where you don't support either team. I'm a Bond fan of the original films from 1962 - 2002. Those movies I can cherish forever, and when they are released in Ultra HD, will gladly purchase again. And I hope that spirit will return again soon in an authentic way. But this era is its own thing, and if I didn't like any of the other movies, I probably won't like this one. That being said, my main concern for the franchise is that Craig has outstayed his welcome as Bond. I don't think people are anywhere near as enthused about him as they used to be between 2006 - 2012. He is visibly looking older and the portrayal has worn thin over the years. I also think they have run out of stories to tell with this Bond. There's only so many times he can fall in love or cradle a dying ally. So I have no real feelings about Bond 25, because I know there will be big changes ahead.
  • I cannot believe I am alone in ruing the advent of social media. In the days before Twitface, MyBook or whatever, the countdown to a new Bond film was a gradual build-up of excitement, stoked by an occasional nugget of information or a photo of the latest Bond Girl in the press. Now, in the wake of a badly conceived and pisspoor official launch, thanks to all-pervasive social media Bond fans are being assailed daily by a tsunami of press reports and, worst of all, pure speculation. Keep this up and we'll all be suffering from 'Bond Overload' before the film's even released. Either that, or so many clips will have been leaked as to spoil the surprises in the film altogether. And if I never hear Phoebe Waller-Bingbang's name again, it'll be too soon. But then, I found her Fleabag offensive on so many levels I was never going to welcome her involvement in an already successful team of screenwriters. As a successful and independently-minded woman myself, my advice to Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson is to pay heed to the old adage: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Moreover, as a still red-blooded female, I like my Bond as he is - only more so.
  • Posts: 5,652
    I cannot believe I am alone in ruing the advent of social media. In the days before Twitface, MyBook or whatever, the countdown to a new Bond film was a gradual build-up of excitement, stoked by an occasional nugget of information or a photo of the latest Bond Girl in the press. Now, in the wake of a badly conceived and pisspoor official launch, thanks to all-pervasive social media Bond fans are being assailed daily by a tsunami of press reports and, worst of all, pure speculation. Keep this up and we'll all be suffering from 'Bond Overload' before the film's even released. Either that, or so many clips will have been leaked as to spoil the surprises in the film altogether. And if I never hear Phoebe Waller-Bingbang's name again, it'll be too soon. But then, I found her Fleabag offensive on so many levels I was never going to welcome her involvement in an already successful team of screenwriters. As a successful and independently-minded woman myself, my advice to Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson is to pay heed to the old adage: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Moreover, as a still red-blooded female, I like my Bond as he is - only more so.

    Well said.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,726
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    My biggest concern is that Bond will get "woke" and go down the same road as Dr. Who, Star Wars, Star Trek, and other franchise that have become feminist/SJW propaganda machines. Looking at the cast it is starting to feel that way. Maybe it's just the director's thing to hire black actors but the diversity level of this film just feels like tokenism, something Bond has now suffered from for decades.

    We had to have a female M in the 90s, had to make MP black, Felix Leiter black, now we may have a black female MI6 agent (or main Bond girl depending on how things shake out), and other cast members who fill some quota. Sure, the location in Jamaica means there will be a higher percentage of black people but is this a decision to improve the story or keep make the PC Nazis happy? I dunno. I will hope for the best but if Bond goes down this road I'm done with the series.

    So... black people don’t deserve the same opportunities as white people?

    And seriously, Star Trek? That’s a franchise that has called for diversity since 1966 with its multiethnic casts, and has been largely SJW. It never had a perfect track record (look at the treatment of Janice Rand in “The Enemy Within”), but a large part of it’s appeal is showing humanity embracing diversity. Even Spock’s IDIC emblem literally stands for “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”.

    Black people have all the opportunities everyone else does. But STEALING roles from white people is wrong. Would you be okay with Shaft being played by a white guy? Or Wonder Woman played by a Mexican man? Why is that any different than race-bending roles originally created as white?

    Shaft is false equivalency. Him being African-American is a vital component to his character’s upbringing. There’s no inherent story reason for Leiter or Moneypenny to be white people (in fact, I don’t think Moneypenny’s skin color was ever addressed by Fleming, make that of what you will), so they’re much more flexible. Much like how it was no issue to cast a white guy in a part that was originally played by a black man in BATTLESTAR GALACTICA because the character’s race was never really a vital component. Dench’s M was a new character altogether, so there was no reason for that role to only be played by a male actor.
    No, ST is not about SJW. It's about exploring the universe as one species and that humanity is no longer concerned with race, identity politics, etc. Now it's the opposite. The left is absolutely obsessed with race, gender, and specific traits people have no power over to change in themselves. For ST, those things didn't matter; people are people and anyone can do anything. The modern world (mainly due to liberals) has skewed this idea into being the focus of everything.

    You may need to rewatch Trek, because it’s much more left leaning than you may want to admit, especially TNG. And racial issues was delved into plenty, but not among humans as their hang ups with each other were over with. The only issue of past Trek was the curious exclusion of LGTB characters, but at least now they have a place in the future of Trek.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited July 2019 Posts: 31,022
    If sticking to Fleming’s ideal (which I do realize is more important to some of us than others), Bond’s whiteness is very relevant. He rues the loss of the British Empire, and has no problem pointing out the inherent inferiorities of other races. Of his time? Of course, but Fleming’s Bond (regardless of how offended modern audiences may be by his biases) could not be black (or Latino, Asian, etc).
Sign In or Register to comment.