NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

12324262829294

Comments

  • Posts: 11,486
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.

    Still was never explicitly monogamous - a crucial difference. This is yet another thing getting desexualized.
  • DCisared wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I echo others here who've said that it's hard to imagine a way forward from here, given the finality of what they put to screen in NTTD.

    The only way forward that I think could really work well would be to make the next Bond actor's tenure be a period piece from the 1930s/40s/50s.

    It'll allow the writers to (mostly) keep their political agendas out, and will give us some Bond fodder from the decades preceding the first actual official Bond film in 1962.

    Also, many like to harp about how the very character of James Bond himself is outdated, a relic of older times due to his misogyny, womanizing, political incorrectness, etc. Well... if you grant they are correct, there's no way to continue a "present-day" Bond 007 series without either awkwardly maintaining that outdated persona or "updating" Bond to a modern day man, which I don't think ANYONE wants.

    Also, let's be honest... the heydays of MI6 (and Britain herself) were back in those days, not 2021.

    I'd love a period piece Bond, Those decades are my favorites in terms of style, films, fashion, music, etc

    We'd get the DB5 again and it's been done to death at this point.

    Honestly I’m tired of the DB5 too. I wish he had driven the Aston Martin version used in CR and QOS. I feel like they ran it into the ground.

    That middle gen DBS like the DB5 is one of the most beautiful objects ever created by man. I know the 5 and to a lesser extent the V8 suit the 'old ways are the best' theme from Skyfall, and that he won it playing poker but I agree they could've used the DBS from those first two DC pictures in both Spectre and NTTD to great effect and the general audience would love it just as much as the DB5. That car was and could've been HIS signature Aston. I can live with the biggest blast of a bond theme in Skyfall being for the DB5 but to do it again just to shoehorn the gorgeous V8 in? Do us a favour.

    The ending of NTTD has just got me thinking of the negatives of DC's era and I'm just looking back more cynically at the moment. I was defensive of Cary and Hans using whattitw in matera and even more ohmss score in the film but I think they really tried using that film for emotional payoff in this one and it's frustrating me. Boyle deserves a pint if he stood his ground and never wanted to kill Bond.

    Agree @Jordo007 . Love the action but bond has ALOT to say in this film. Seems like they were constantly trying to find stuff that was profound for him to say a

    Was it just me who would've liked bond to actually apologise to Madeline aswell for shipping her off on the train and a bit more time for her to be angry with him. I realise it's an action adventure thriller but just thought that it seemed quite off.
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    You felt punished by that film? How exactly? A film about a womanising heterosexual man with his pick of exceptionally attractive women. Try for one second, and I know it's clearly hard for you, to remember, if you feel punished by that, that culture had been dominated by 'warm blooded heterosexuals for its history. And still is. And Bond still is. So I'm honestly asking, where was your problem because you seem shy about being specific, which makes one wonder. If you really need a film to get your kicks that much, go to therapy, because the reason you can't get women and the reason films showing a bit of equality anger you are probably closely connected. Sorry, it's not 'wokeness', it really is you.

    Your argument is basically that only your taste can ever be represented, because I know even if it's not Bond and another character, you'll always have a problem with it.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 32
    imranbecks wrote: »
    What do you all think of the gunbarrel sequence? I thought it looked kinda off and the lack of blood flow down the screen after the gunshot really ruined it IMHO..

    What's wrong with just keeping it traditional instead of changing it so much.... :-?

    Terrible. Craig's walk and pose were extremely goofy and videogame-like, while the aesthetic changes only detracted from the impact of the sequence (which is heavily nostalgic) for no apparent reason, not to mention looking really cheap and ugly. I'm not necessarily against changing the gunbarrel and some previous changes have been successful (making the barrel 3D and animated in the Brosnan films) while others have not (the CGI bullet in DAD) but in most cases I can see why those changes might have been made, even if they ultimately didn't work. The changes in NTTD were not only detrimental, but there was no discernable reason why they were made. Unless there's a meaningful reason to change or update it, it's beloved for a reason and there's no need to screw around with it just for the sake of changing stuff.

    Also, while the transition from the Universal logo to the circles might have worked had it been seamless (maybe had the logo zoomed out until it was the size of a regular gunbarrel circle), but it introduced a cut/edit into the gunbarrel sequence! I mean, who seriously thought that was a worthwhile idea?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,843
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.

    Still was never explicitly monogamous - a crucial difference. This is yet another thing getting desexualized.

    You think Bond will stay monogamous for the rest of the franchise? I think that’s an overreaction.

    I’m not at all surprised that Bond only gets with Lea Seydoux. I’m more surprised people expected otherwise, given that this film is about reconnecting with a former flame that Bond thought betrayed him. I guess we should have had a token lay for him aka SKYFALL with that Greek bird.
  • Posts: 11,486
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.

    Still was never explicitly monogamous - a crucial difference. This is yet another thing getting desexualized.

    You think Bond will stay monogamous for the rest of the franchise? I think that’s an overreaction.

    I’m not at all surprised that Bond only gets with Lea Seydoux. I’m more surprised people expected otherwise, given that this film is about reconnecting with a former flame that Bond thought betrayed him. I guess we should have had a token lay for him aka SKYFALL with that Greek bird.

    With the way culture is now, it feels like a more than plausible shift. There was plenty potential for Bond to have a traditional “lay” in between his falling out with her character which would have perfectly made sense.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 9
    This forum is enough to show why women are scared to walk the streets at night. There are some really really, weird men out there getting upset a film about a heterosexual white man banging hot chicks, doesn't turn them on enough. Actually quite scary.

    Honestly, just go and watch porn, and the rest of us can watch a grown up film.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 5,868
    neila83 wrote: »
    You felt punished by that film? How exactly? A film about a womanising heterosexual man with his pick of exceptionally attractive women. Try for one second, and I know it's clearly hard for you, to remember, if you feel punished by that, that culture had been dominated by 'warm blooded heterosexuals for its history. And still is. And Bond still is. So I'm honestly asking, where was your problem because you seem shy about being specific, which makes one wonder. If you really need a film to get your kicks that much, go to therapy, because the reason you can't get women and the reason films showing a bit of equality anger you are probably closely connected. Sorry, it's not 'wokeness', it really is you.

    Your argument is basically that only your taste can ever be represented, because I know even if it's not Bond and another character, you'll always have a problem with it.

    Afraid you read me wrong. I felt punished by your words, not the film. And I still do. I've never even used the term "wokeness" as you put it. And you are distorting and amplifying my words quite hysterically. Please don't.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,843
    neila83 wrote: »
    This forum is enough to show why women are scared to walk the streets at night. There are some really really, weird men out there getting upset a film about a heterosexual white man banging hot chicks, doesn't turn them on enough. Actually quite scary.

    The defenses over Bond’s treatment of Pat and Pussy Galore in the past week is telling.
  • Posts: 485
    FoxRox wrote: »

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    We had the exact same criticism about Bond's monogamy over thirty years ago with TLD and the press attributing it to the 'AIDS crisis' when in truth it wouldn't have served the plot for Dalton's Bond to continually dump Kara from his protection to bonk a random woman.

    I also have a work colleague whom refuses to accept OHMSS as canon because Bond marries in it. I've pointed out numerous times it was Bond's own creator whom married Bond in the original novel but that still holds no sway. "Bond doesn't marry".

    I wasn't around in 1955 but I very much doubt the literary fans were bemoaning the end of the character because he didn't sleep with Gala Brand in MR.

    Regardless of what manufactured outrage the tabloid press or half-arsed fans on You Tube say about the direction of the series I'd personally judge the films on what actually occurs in them. None of the 'woke Bond' criticism truly manifested in NTTD either. I discern a few of these online critics are now quite peeved that they can't slam the film on that premise.
  • Posts: 11,486
    Cowley wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    We had the exact same criticism about Bond's monogamy over thirty years ago with TLD and the press attributing it to the 'AIDS crisis' when in truth it wouldn't have served the plot for Dalton's Bond to continually dump Kara from his protection to bonk a random woman.

    I also have a work colleague whom refuses to accept OHMSS as canon because Bond marries in it. I've pointed out numerous times it was Bond's own creator whom married Bond in the original novel but that still holds no sway. "Bond doesn't marry".

    I wasn't around in 1955 but I very much doubt the literary fans were bemoaning the end of the character because he didn't sleep with Gala Brand in MR.

    Regardless of what manufactured outrage the tabloid press or half-arsed fans on You Tube say about the direction of the series I'd personally judge the films on what actually occurs in them. None of the 'woke Bond' criticism truly manifested in NTTD either. I discern a few of these online critics are now quite peeved that they can't slam the film on that premise.

    There’s still the woman in the PTS. It’s still made clear and allows Dalton Bond to be a player. The difference between 1 and 2 still means everything, or at least clearly interested in more (QOS). It’s just hard to shake the feeling they’re giving into pressure and want to take that part of his character away.
  • neila83 wrote: »
    This forum is enough to show why women are scared to walk the streets at night. There are some really really, weird men out there getting upset a film about a heterosexual white man banging hot chicks, doesn't turn them on enough. Actually quite scary.

    The defenses over Bond’s treatment of Pat and Pussy Galore in the past week is telling.

    Indeed, in their mind everything is OK as long as it's someone like them acting out their fantasy, whoever it hurts, and no-one should complain.

    But if someone dares suggest others have the right to be represented, watch how quickly they go full snowflake!

    The type who think everything has to be as it was pre 1960s because change is woke. And yet they are strangely reluctant to go back a bit further and respect that white people taking over was pretty woke once.
  • Posts: 5,868
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    We had the exact same criticism about Bond's monogamy over thirty years ago with TLD and the press attributing it to the 'AIDS crisis' when in truth it wouldn't have served the plot for Dalton's Bond to continually dump Kara from his protection to bonk a random woman.

    I also have a work colleague whom refuses to accept OHMSS as canon because Bond marries in it. I've pointed out numerous times it was Bond's own creator whom married Bond in the original novel but that still holds no sway. "Bond doesn't marry".

    I wasn't around in 1955 but I very much doubt the literary fans were bemoaning the end of the character because he didn't sleep with Gala Brand in MR.

    Regardless of what manufactured outrage the tabloid press or half-arsed fans on You Tube say about the direction of the series I'd personally judge the films on what actually occurs in them. None of the 'woke Bond' criticism truly manifested in NTTD either. I discern a few of these online critics are now quite peeved that they can't slam the film on that premise.

    There’s still the woman in the PTS. It’s still made clear and allows Dalton Bond to be a player. The difference between 1 and 2 still means everything, or at least clearly interested in more (QOS). It’s just hard to shake the feeling they’re giving into pressure and want to take that part of his character away.

    I strongly believe that is the case, stronger now than ever before.
  • Posts: 2,391
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    Please tell me how a gay character appearing in something punishes you for your sexuality. Please, as a fellow heterosexual male, make it make sense for me.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,843
    Bond flirts with the yacht woman but we never see any indication of them doing the deed. Doesn’t count.
  • Wait, was Q actually gay in the film? I wasn't clear on that. Did he say he was waiting for a "he" for dinner?
  • Posts: 11,486
    Bond flirts with the yacht woman but we never see any indication of them doing the deed. Doesn’t count.

    Hence my “interested in more,” since he only beds one in QOS, but it’s still obviously not a “monogamous Bond.”
  • foo_yukfoo_yuk Canada
    Posts: 26
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.

    Still was never explicitly monogamous - a crucial difference. This is yet another thing getting desexualized.

    He got married in OHMSS, dude… Unless
    you’re suggesting his plan with Tracy was to have an open marriage?
  • Posts: 2,391
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    We had the exact same criticism about Bond's monogamy over thirty years ago with TLD and the press attributing it to the 'AIDS crisis' when in truth it wouldn't have served the plot for Dalton's Bond to continually dump Kara from his protection to bonk a random woman.

    I also have a work colleague whom refuses to accept OHMSS as canon because Bond marries in it. I've pointed out numerous times it was Bond's own creator whom married Bond in the original novel but that still holds no sway. "Bond doesn't marry".

    I wasn't around in 1955 but I very much doubt the literary fans were bemoaning the end of the character because he didn't sleep with Gala Brand in MR.

    Regardless of what manufactured outrage the tabloid press or half-arsed fans on You Tube say about the direction of the series I'd personally judge the films on what actually occurs in them. None of the 'woke Bond' criticism truly manifested in NTTD either. I discern a few of these online critics are now quite peeved that they can't slam the film on that premise.

    There’s still the woman in the PTS. It’s still made clear and allows Dalton Bond to be a player. The difference between 1 and 2 still means everything, or at least clearly interested in more (QOS). It’s just hard to shake the feeling they’re giving into pressure and want to take that part of his character away.

    Because he was monogamous in ONE film? The fact that he would've slept with Nomi had his suspicions of her being sent by MI-6 been wrong aside...good grief. Did you think watching DAD that the franchise was at risk of having Bond surf a tsunami in every film afterwards? Because the two ideas are about equally ridiculous.
  • Posts: 5,868
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    We had the exact same criticism about Bond's monogamy over thirty years ago with TLD and the press attributing it to the 'AIDS crisis' when in truth it wouldn't have served the plot for Dalton's Bond to continually dump Kara from his protection to bonk a random woman.

    I also have a work colleague whom refuses to accept OHMSS as canon because Bond marries in it. I've pointed out numerous times it was Bond's own creator whom married Bond in the original novel but that still holds no sway. "Bond doesn't marry".

    I wasn't around in 1955 but I very much doubt the literary fans were bemoaning the end of the character because he didn't sleep with Gala Brand in MR.

    Regardless of what manufactured outrage the tabloid press or half-arsed fans on You Tube say about the direction of the series I'd personally judge the films on what actually occurs in them. None of the 'woke Bond' criticism truly manifested in NTTD either. I discern a few of these online critics are now quite peeved that they can't slam the film on that premise.

    There’s still the woman in the PTS. It’s still made clear and allows Dalton Bond to be a player. The difference between 1 and 2 still means everything, or at least clearly interested in more (QOS). It’s just hard to shake the feeling they’re giving into pressure and want to take that part of his character away.

    I strongly believe that is the case, stronger now than ever before.
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    Please tell me how a gay character appearing in something punishes you for your sexuality. Please, as a fellow heterosexual male, make it make sense for me.

    I never said that. It's not there in what I wrote, and I don't even agree with that. So what on earth are you talking about? I was talking about it not being wrong to have Bond be a womaniser. That's all. Why are you guys talking about gay characters? I have no problem with gay characters. Are we getting mixed posts here?
  • Posts: 11,486
    foo_yuk wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Well, Fleming did write for "warm-blooded heterosexuals". And so what? Can't "warm-blooded heterosexuals" have their niche film now and then? Are we to be punished for our sexuality? Of course not "everything has to be as a heterosexual male wants", but the James Bond books and films were specially created for that effect. Is that wrong, pray tell?

    This. It’s absurd how much flak it’s had to take and all the political correctness now. How is it even sexist or evil to just have multiple partners with consent as Bond does? It’s so stupid. Now that he’s officially monogamous, who knows, the next one could be totally sex-free. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of this character unless the right people step in and restore it to what it should be, but unlikely thanks to stupid societal pressures.

    Oh please. People complained about the same thing with Dalton over 30 years ago, that he didn’t have as many conquests compared to Moore rogering four different birds in a single film.

    Still was never explicitly monogamous - a crucial difference. This is yet another thing getting desexualized.

    He got married in OHMSS, dude… Unless
    you’re suggesting his plan with Tracy was to have an open marriage?

    Yes - and he wasn’t monogamous for the entirety of the film. He’s with Madeleine at the beginning of NTTD, but it’s like clear they’re done until much later in the movie, so Bond not having any sex in between doesn’t make as much sense.
  • Posts: 5,868
    Wait, was Q actually gay in the film? I wasn't clear on that. Did he say he was waiting for a "he" for dinner?

    I think he was, and it was implied, and I had no problem with that whatsoever.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,843
    Wait, was Q actually gay in the film? I wasn't clear on that. Did he say he was waiting for a "he" for dinner?

    Man, if GE came out today, there would be the traditionalists/sticklers complaining loudly about Moneypenny going out on a date.

    “SHE SHOULD ONLY PINE FOR BOND! THIS IS AN UTTER BETRAYAL OF CUBBY’S LEGACY! DAMN WOKE/FEMINISTS!!!”
  • Posts: 11,486
    But there’s the whole gag going back to the series’ beginning with Moneypenny and Bond not getting together. Pretty sure lots more outrage had the DAD bit near the end been not fantasy.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,843
    FoxRox wrote: »
    But there’s the whole gag going back to the series’ beginning with Moneypenny and Bond not getting together. Pretty sure lots more outrage had the DAD bit near the end been not fantasy.

    I do love how whether they shagged or not in SF is open ended. It really could have gone either way depending on how you want to see it.
  • Posts: 2,391
    FoxRox wrote: »
    But there’s the whole gag going back to the series’ beginning with Moneypenny and Bond not getting together. Pretty sure lots more outrage had the DAD bit near the end been not fantasy.

    I do love how whether they shagged or not in SF is open ended. It really could have gone either way depending on how you want to see it.

    Lois Maxwell once said she liked to imagine the two went on a holiday somewhere for a couple days, and maybe they did or maybe they didn't, and either way they let it be afterwards save for their playful flirtations.

    For what it's worth, the DAD sequence enrages me. The idea that Moneypenny looks at Bond like he's internet porn is ridiculous and such a condescending betrayal of the character. To BOTH characters, actually.
  • Posts: 11,486
    I do not appreciate being insinuated to be a creep for my views of this fictional film series or called out for my questioning. I haven’t attacked anyone who likes the movie and even said I’d still give it the best chance I can, all I’ve done is voice my own concerns and disagreements with directions they’ve gone in. Those who don’t like the film or directions they’ve gone in for whatever reasons, including some that betray the source material, have just as much a right to say what they want as those who like it.
  • Posts: 5,868
    FoxRox wrote: »
    I do not appreciate being insinuated to be a creep for my views of this fictional film series or called out for my questioning. I haven’t attacked anyone who likes the movie and even said I’d still give it the best chance I can, all I’ve done is voice my own concerns and disagreements with directions they’ve gone in. Those who don’t like the film or directions they’ve gone in for whatever reasons, including some that betray the source material, have just as much a right to say what they want as those who like it.

    Hear, hear.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,843
    Prior to Q, the only gay representation were villains. It actually surprises me it took this long to have a GOOD character be acknowledged as gay for once. If it’s just a passing line like how Moneypenny‘s date was, that’s perfectly fine. I won’t complain about a brief acknowledgement of a gay as the producers shoving an agenda.
  • Posts: 11,486
    Q being gay doesn’t bother me whatsoever. I don’t see it as agenda pushing either based on what I heard.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 959
    Xandaca wrote: »
    imranbecks wrote: »
    What do you all think of the gunbarrel sequence? I thought it looked kinda off and the lack of blood flow down the screen after the gunshot really ruined it IMHO..

    What's wrong with just keeping it traditional instead of changing it so much.... :-?

    Terrible. Craig's walk and pose were extremely goofy and videogame-like, while the aesthetic changes only detracted from the impact of the sequence (which is heavily nostalgic) for no apparent reason, not to mention looking really cheap and ugly. I'm not necessarily against changing the gunbarrel and some previous changes have been successful (making the barrel 3D and animated in the Brosnan films) while others have not (the CGI bullet in DAD) but in most cases I can see why those changes might have been made, even if they ultimately didn't work. The changes in NTTD were not only detrimental, but there was no discernable reason why they were made. Unless there's a meaningful reason to change or update it, it's beloved for a reason and there's no need to screw around with it just for the sake of changing stuff.

    Also, while the transition from the Universal logo to the circles might have worked had it been seamless (maybe had the logo zoomed out until it was the size of a regular gunbarrel circle), but it introduced a cut/edit into the gunbarrel sequence! I mean, who seriously thought that was a worthwhile idea?

    When it first appeared and I saw the Universal logo transition into the gunbarrel sequence, I thought hey, that's cool and creative.. But then it quickly went downhill the moment the dots appeared, sort of breaking off the seamlessness and then Bond walked into the frame with the new look. I was like what the heck was that. And then to top it off, no blood flow.
Sign In or Register to comment.