NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions SPOILERS ALLOWED

1160161163165166249

Comments

  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2021 Posts: 10,512
    N
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Alpha Quadrant
    edited October 2021 Posts: 5,520
    If this makes you upset enough to literally feel insulted, then you deserve to be.
  • Posts: 355
    There's been "death" stories of well established heroes for decades. For example, they killed Superman in the comics (in the regular run, to boot!), there was also Batman death stories (TDK from Frank Miller was launched essentially as Batman last stand).

    So killing Bond is another way to keeping current with trends. It's not like he can't come back, as written here and there in other threads, there are multiple way they can follow up.

    On other note, I think Primo stole a few things from me aka Stamper in TND. Remember I also have two different eyes. I don't remember what was the initial intention in TND though, apart that I was supposed not to feel pain, which they removed from the film and re-used instead in WINE with that little fellow Victor Zokas (Виктор Зокас) bad guy.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 784
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I mean, I can't confirm that as I wasn't in the room, but it seems to be the general interpretation that the major creative difference that lead to Boyle leaving the project was the question of the ending.

    I am not going to try and dictate what you should think or feel, but just to explain my thinking: It's interesting that we now have a story in which Bond dies. To me that has no impact on the series going forward and having watched Moonraker and The Living Daylights after watching NTTD I can confidently say that it had no impact on the past of the series. At no point did it even cross my mind that some decades down the line a different incarnation of the character dies on-screen. Just like I didn't really think about whether Moore-Bond has died off-screen when real-life Roger Moore died. They are still very enjoyable films and to me the different actors had always been in seperate universes anyway.
    But it's something interesting to depict, I think and it is worthwhile to grapple with it after almost 70 years of this character existing, 60 of those on film. What would it take to kill someone like him? How does someone who has survived so much face death? What will I feel, when I see it? To me, that is all interesting to ponder and they didn't do it for shock value, but for story reasons. They did it because they considered this a story worth telling and a good capstone to the story they have been telling for the last 15 years. If they had wanted to shock they would have gone full OHMSS and had Bond survive the island only to be shot in the head on a drive-by-shooting in that final scene with Madeleine and Mathilde in the car. Or had Safin execute him in the pool and Nomi come back and finish the mission. Or just have all of them fail altogether and the world ends. To me, this is actually a good and worthy ending for (one incarnation of) James Bond. He killed the villain. SPECTRE is destroyed. He saved all of the innocents, but to make sure they stay safe, he - the living weapon - has to sacrifice himself. So he takes the full brunt of a Royal Navy missile battery on the head and goes out as a superb meteor, every atom in magnificent glow. This is miles better then being killed by a villain or dying old and infirm in a care home somwhere.
    "The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time."

    I understand that you don't need this in your escapist entertainment, but the filmmakers clearly don't see it that way anymore and haven't for over a decade now.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,461
    Feyador wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Another +1 for Billy magnusson here. I thought he played the fan boy to scumbag brilliantly

    One of my favourite vibes in the film is the creepy bald guys walking to camera with the eye. The whole spectre party has a sinister vibe above it. Very well done. Kind of like eyes wide shut meets the dream sequence in Labyrinth

    I also like the shot (either from Bond or Paloma's perspective, perhaps the former) where they bend over with the eye on the pillow so a woman sitting down may speak to Blofeld. That whole party sequence is brilliant.

    The woman is Brigitte Millar's Vogel character from Spectre, I think .... she toasts Blofeld and says, 'Happy birthday," or something like that.

    That’s a nice touch, I had no clue! She was pretty solid in her very limited SP appearance. I wonder just how many others you’ll be able to spot once the film hits 4K/Blu-ray and you can pause with ease.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 242
    RC7 wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.

    Are the movie's defenders also being hyperbolic in their praise? It seems to me that outrage is perfectly justified by the ending.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.

    Are the movie's defenders also being hyperbolic in their praise? It seems to me that outrage is perfectly justified by the ending.

    I’m not talking about praise/criticisms of the film. I’m talking about the insinuation by a number of detractors that this somehow alienating the hardcore, or that it’s somehow a demonstrably insidious move by Craig, the producers etc. Firstly, I don’t need fans to speak on my behalf and, secondly, let’s talk about what we know rather than hypothesising just to fuel the vitriol. If you’re actually ‘outraged’ by this film you really need to grow up.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 49
    So I ask the question again Craig Bond survives with a partner and daughter family a lost M, Felix and Vesper.

    So does Bond 26 buy all of that investment and we have someone else continuing Daniels journey with all the means. The washed up soul of Skyfall, the retired Bond the Bond finding love and surviving.

    Answers to Norway on a postcard.

    I am sorry but if as observer you have made that journey and lose yourself in that journey it is frankly inconceivable that you buy into even floating continuity.

    If you look back on the thread about Daniels ending from 2019 I said his death was the only logical conclusion and a new wiped slate Bond is also the only logical conclusion.

    No one can pick up Daniels story but someone can pick up the legacy.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    RC7 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.

    Are the movie's defenders also being hyperbolic in their praise? It seems to me that outrage is perfectly justified by the ending.

    I’m not talking about praise/criticisms of the film. I’m talking about the insinuation by a number of detractors that this somehow alienating the hardcore, or that it’s somehow a demonstrably insidious move by Craig, the producers etc. Firstly, I don’t need fans to speak on my behalf and, secondly, let’s talk about what we know rather than hypothesising just to fuel the vitriol. If you’re actually ‘outraged’ by this film you really need to grow up.

    Stop being so hyperbolic, you hyperbole.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Alpha Quadrant
    Posts: 5,520
    They should bring back Brosnan Bond in the next film and kill him off.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Minion wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.

    Are the movie's defenders also being hyperbolic in their praise? It seems to me that outrage is perfectly justified by the ending.

    I’m not talking about praise/criticisms of the film. I’m talking about the insinuation by a number of detractors that this somehow alienating the hardcore, or that it’s somehow a demonstrably insidious move by Craig, the producers etc. Firstly, I don’t need fans to speak on my behalf and, secondly, let’s talk about what we know rather than hypothesising just to fuel the vitriol. If you’re actually ‘outraged’ by this film you really need to grow up.

    Stop being so hyperbolic, you hyperbole.

    Haha
  • To quote Tiffany Case... “THEY JUST KILLED JAMES BOND!!!!!!”

    I still can’t believe it. Two weeks later.

    Ian and Cubby (and Harry too!) must be doing contortions in their graves. Poor things :(
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Alpha Quadrant
    Posts: 5,520
    To quote Tiffany Case... “THEY JUST KILLED JAMES BOND!!!!!!”

    I still can’t believe it. Two weeks later.

    Ian and Cubby (and Harry too!) must be doing contortions in their graves. Poor things :(

    They’re dead. So what they would have thought doesn’t matter. Even Cubby encouraged his children to make their own decisions and not wonder whether he would have approved or not.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,165
    Only because they'd have loved rolling in the sweet, sweet money this movie is making.
    They should bring back Brosnan Bond in the next film and kill him off.
    "This never happened to the other fella... oh wait."
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    To quote Tiffany Case... “THEY JUST KILLED JAMES BOND!!!!!!”

    I still can’t believe it. Two weeks later.

    Ian and Cubby (and Harry too!) must be doing contortions in their graves. Poor things :(

    Fleming wouldn’t care.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython Alpha Quadrant
    Posts: 5,520
    And they’ve already made creative choices that Cubby wouldn’t have approved, such as the Bond Begins pitch that he shot down in 1986 because he thought audiences wouldn’t want to see Bond as a novice. His children proved him wrong!
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    And they’ve already made creative choices that Cubby wouldn’t have approved, such as the Bond Begins pitch that he shot down in 1986 because he thought audiences wouldn’t want to see Bond as a novice. His children proved him wrong!

    Noooooooooooo! You're wronnnnnnng!

    giphy.gif
  • Posts: 7,341
    Minion wrote: »
    And they’ve already made creative choices that Cubby wouldn’t have approved, such as the Bond Begins pitch that he shot down in 1986 because he thought audiences wouldn’t want to see Bond as a novice. His children proved him wrong!

    Noooooooooooo! You're wronnnnnnng!

    giphy.gif


    NOOOO!! Ian and Cubby were never wrong! About ANYTHING!!
  • Posts: 10,816
    I will say, as interesting and different as it was to have a “Bond Begins” and “Bond Ends” movie, I hope they don’t do another origin or death story for Bond, at least for a very long time.
  • Posts: 355
    Cubby ditched the Young Bond thing back in 1986 because it was Bond in his twenties.
    He did however produce the young Bond animated series years later.
    I think Michael treatment was about Bond young years, the military etc. not bond beginnings as 007.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 242
    RC7 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.

    Are the movie's defenders also being hyperbolic in their praise? It seems to me that outrage is perfectly justified by the ending.

    I’m not talking about praise/criticisms of the film. I’m talking about the insinuation by a number of detractors that this somehow alienating the hardcore, or that it’s somehow a demonstrably insidious move by Craig, the producers etc. Firstly, I don’t need fans to speak on my behalf and, secondly, let’s talk about what we know rather than hypothesising just to fuel the vitriol. If you’re actually ‘outraged’ by this film you really need to grow up.

    Going by IMDB reviews, metacritic user score (6.5), comment sections on various websites, etc. it has alienated part of the fanbase.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 4,605
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.

    Are the movie's defenders also being hyperbolic in their praise? It seems to me that outrage is perfectly justified by the ending.

    I’m not talking about praise/criticisms of the film. I’m talking about the insinuation by a number of detractors that this somehow alienating the hardcore, or that it’s somehow a demonstrably insidious move by Craig, the producers etc. Firstly, I don’t need fans to speak on my behalf and, secondly, let’s talk about what we know rather than hypothesising just to fuel the vitriol. If you’re actually ‘outraged’ by this film you really need to grow up.

    Going by IMDB reviews, metacritic user score (6.5), comment sections on various websites, etc. it has alienated part of the fanbase.

    Internet comment sections...please, anything but that! I'm sure Barbara is ready to throw herself into the Thames...
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    ertert wrote: »
    Stamper wrote: »
    His actions and obsessions with Madeline and daughter hints to that.

    Mmmh. I feel like there is also stuff in the film that goes in the opposite direction and therefore muddles those hints and implications.
    I would have preferred it if there was one clear surface-level way to read the character - he is obsessed with Madeleine, or he is obsessed with ending bloodshed, or he wants revenge on the world or he wants his creation to outlive himself, because he is infertile or he is racist or whatever - and then you can peel that back and find other stuff or fill out blanks with you own headcanon. Safin is, in my personal opinion, too muddled on the surface to allow for really rewarding deep-reading. There are too many things that are not mysterious but rather just completely unclear and sometimes even contradictory.
    In turn, my personal reading/headcanon for the character is that really, he himself doesn't know what he wants other than revenge on SPECTRE. He is all pseudo-philosophy and grand gestures, but there isn't really anything behind it. He takes Mathilde hostage and then just let's her go, because he doesn't really know what to do with her. He mass-produces Heracles and gives a grand speech about it but then he just wants to sell it after his own personal revenge is complete. He is completely stunted emotionally with his whole life revolving around the death of his family and his saving of Madeleine and he simply has no way to get to grips with any of that and therefore is all over the place.
    The real villain is Valdo.

    This is really interesting and in my opinion only elevates the character. He was an amateur, an arrogant little twit.

    This is such an interesting take on the character. While I agree that Safin was wasn't all that interesting of a character or imposing of a threat, I still liked Malek and he filled the role of "antagonist". He looked evil, his plan was evil, I guess sometimes that's all that's needed. But further elaboration, like maybe making him slightly aloof or a bit of an idiot would have added further dimensions to him. Maybe a guy who styles himself a god because he saved a preteen years and years ago? Then he goes on this crazy vendetta to avenge his family but he's still a bit of an immature idiot who doesn't know what he's doing and is over his head with all of this villain stuff? What I wanted to know is exactly how he has the means for all of this; eg. funding, hardware, gear, supplies, technical no how, etc? Was he an entrepreneur? Stashed his family's money away somewhere? Never explained or made much sense.

    As for the movie, this was the first real concrete thing I've written on it after having been in somewhat of a state of shock for a few days now. Suffice to say I loathed the ending and felt that they ruined what was easily a top ten outing. Ruined the rest of the franchise? I don't know yet but how can they possibly come back from this? To me it seems illogical and silly to kill off your protagonist in a bid to be "bold", "daring", "different", whatever. I very much doubt Cubby would have signed off on this and don't really see the need for it. I've grown up on and with James Bond. Seeing him killed is not something I ever really needed or wanted to see. Did anyone?

    This was an institution and I feel like Craig or Barbara or someone in charge is playing fast and loose with the legacy of the series. Honestly it felt like an insult to hard core fans and I can't see the justification for it. Every actor has a final film and then we move on to the next actor. An actor putting a final word in just to be different and shock the audience seems like it's putting the needs of the actor before the character. This is different from putting their spin on it and Bond was plenty humanized in every single other Craig film without the need of having to kill him off. We get it, Craig isn't coming back. Why does this need to be bold and italicized as if it's completing an arc? I don't need any profound statements on the nature of life and death in my escapist entertainment. My perfect ending would have just been the ending of Fleming's YOLT or just having Bond on a boat/at sea for the first time since TND.

    Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but can anyone confirm whether or not this is what Danny Boyle was fired for? He didn't want to kill Bond so MGW and BB found someone who would?

    I know plenty of hardcore fans who weren’t insulted by it. I get that some people hate it, are furious even, but the hyperbole around it is getting tiresome.

    Are the movie's defenders also being hyperbolic in their praise? It seems to me that outrage is perfectly justified by the ending.

    I’m not talking about praise/criticisms of the film. I’m talking about the insinuation by a number of detractors that this somehow alienating the hardcore, or that it’s somehow a demonstrably insidious move by Craig, the producers etc. Firstly, I don’t need fans to speak on my behalf and, secondly, let’s talk about what we know rather than hypothesising just to fuel the vitriol. If you’re actually ‘outraged’ by this film you really need to grow up.

    Going by IMDB reviews, metacritic user score (6.5), comment sections on various websites, etc. it has alienated part of the fanbase.
    Now you're obligated to bring up an example of a movie that alienated no part of it's fanbase, since apparently NTTD is an outlier in not universally appealing to everyone.
  • I don't really care if Ian Fleming, Cubby, Sean, Roger or the double-taking pigeon would or wouldn't have liked James Bond killed off.

    I hated it, though.
  • Posts: 2,366
    And they’ve already made creative choices that Cubby wouldn’t have approved, such as the Bond Begins pitch that he shot down in 1986 because he thought audiences wouldn’t want to see Bond as a novice. His children proved him wrong!

    Though one should point out he was much less of a novice in CR than in the Bond Begins script, which was a complete origin story that included Bond joining the secret service from the Navy, being mentored by an older agent who he picks up many habits from, and so forth. Barbara and Michael G. Wilson in a way followed Cubby's wishes by not incorporating many concepts from this version into CR, which shows Bond early in his career but nowhere as green. Nor does the film act as a prequel to the entire series. NTTD has also proven itself to be a financial success, even if hampered by the pandemic, so Cubby's descendants have shown good judgment at the box office. No flops on their watch.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    I don't know where to put this news about Ana:

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 20,244
    I don't really care if Ian Fleming, Cubby, Sean, Roger or the double-taking pigeon would or wouldn't have liked James Bond killed off.

    This is the proper attitude, in my opinion. Whether you like the film or not, the argument shouldn't be whether Fleming or the others would've approved of the choices it's made. 1) The context continues to change; 2021 and number 25 in the series isn't the same as 1963 and number 2 in the series. 2) We like or dislike a film; we don't have to be told to like or dislike a film. 3) What--respectfully stated--the dead would have thought about this film, is a highly speculative question at best. We will never be able to tell. People are fickle and unpredictable after all.

    So would Ian Fleming have loved NTTD? We don't know, we won't ever know, it wouldn't really matter, and I don't care.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,409
    Do we have a thread on Bond costumes/designs? Or other technical aspects?
    Like ... Stunts In Bond Films
    Costumes & Set Design in Bond Films

    Do we have any threads like that? I'd enjoy them.
Sign In or Register to comment.