Jump to content

"No Time to Die" (Bond 25) - Trailer and Discussion Thread, update: MGM allegedly wants $600 million for streaming


Recommended Posts

Just now, EternallDarkness said:

 

Yes, and if you'd read all my posts you'd see that to me 007 will always be James Bond. After 60+ years anyone else as 007 is just wrong to me. But hey, that's me. I am sure plenty of others will feel different. 

I had only read the first page when I replied. 

 

I kinda agree with you, but at the same time I don't care at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Depending on how they use her and Daniel Craig it could be neat. I wouldn’t mind seeing an old James Bond, body riddled with injuries, mentoring a young, new agent come to terms with being a spy and assassin, and help with the trade craft to be successful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

007, of all characters, has shown to be pretty flexible. Yes, all his iterations so far have been white and male, but they haven't even all been british. I feel like there is some kind of Bond idealism that people want to protect, but it doesn't exist uniformly in the films. Bond is often debonair and slick, but he's also been oafish and camp. We've seen great movies featuring the character where he's been deadly serious, and we've seen good movies where he's been completely over the top. We've seen various actors play the role in completely contradictory ways across films that have almost nothing in common beyond the moniker, and somehow, the name lives on and we still occasionally manage to get good films out of the series. 

 

Assuming that this rumor is true and that we will soon get a 007 film featuring a woman, I'm all for it. The character is perfectly malleable, and if they're going to keep making these movies forever, finding someone they can build great movies around is my biggest concern.

 

That said, I think it was never going to be Idris, if only because he's too expensive. He's too well known, and he'd never sign a cheap enough contract that locks him in for a bunch of movies, which I'm sure was a pre-condition. He'd have been a great Bond, and here's to hoping that Lynch will as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TwinIon said:

 

That said, I think it was never going to be Idris, if only because he's too expensive. He's too well known, and he'd never sign a cheap enough contract that locks him in for a bunch of movies, which I'm sure was a pre-condition. He'd have been a great Bond, and here's to hoping that Lynch will as well.

 

At the time they were originally floating the idea for Idris I don't think he was as well known as you might think. I'm fairly sure they could have locked him to a brick of movies for a reasonable price. And despite what someone said earlier about him saying he didn't want to do it, I seem to remember him being quite cheeky (as the Brits say) on twitter which made it seem like he was quite interested in the role. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, EternallDarkness said:

At the time they were originally floating the idea for Idris I don't think he was as well known as you might think. I'm fairly sure they could have locked him to a brick of movies for a reasonable price. And despite what someone said earlier about him saying he didn't want to do it, I seem to remember him being quite cheeky (as the Brits say) on twitter which made it seem like he was quite interested in the role. 

You're right about when people first started talking about him as a possibility. I feel like there were suggestions as far back as when Luther was on the air, but at that point Craig was already firmly in the role. By the time Skyfall came around, and it seemed like Craig might leave the role, Elba had been in Thor and Prometheus and Pacific Rim. They certainly could have gotten him for less than they were paying Craig, but probably not for as little as they started paying Craig. It's possible conversations were happening long before that, but if they were, I likely missed out on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie is being directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. This will probably be the best Bond film ever made if Sin Nombre, Jane Eyre, Beasts of No Nation, True Detective season 1, and Maniac season 1 are anything to go by.

 

This isn't stunt casting. An auteur is working at the top of his game with top shelf talent to make a great Bond film. I don't know if this idea will work, but I have confidence it will. The only reason to call it "stunt casting" is to try to shame the idea, when the talent both in front of and behind the camera indicates everyone is taking the film quite seriously. The only way the film may not end up good is studio and/or producer interference, which is possible on big films like this (as always). Or the writing isn't there (which happens on some Bond films, to be fair).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

The movie is being directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. This will probably be the best Bond film ever made if Sin Nombre, Jane Eyre, Beasts of No Nation, True Detective season 1, and Manian season 1 are anything to go by.

 

This isn't stunt casting. An auteur is working at the top of his game with top shelf talent to make a great Bond film. I don't know if this idea will work, but I have confidence it will. The only reason to call it "stunt casting" is to try to shame the idea, when the behind the scenes crew indicates everyone is taking the film quite seriously. 

 

It is really a slap in the face to one of the most talented people in the business today to suggest they have compromised their artistic vision for a cheap round of headlines. As though a major franchise like this even needs the help!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I can tell you I won't be watching this fucking movie. 

Spoiler

Because I haven't seen a Bond movie outside of goldeneye and I generally don't care about the franchise. The King's Man on the other hand...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Well, I can tell you I won't be watching this fucking movie. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Casino Royal is good though. Easily the best in the Daniel Craig series of Bond films. And in general it is a good action movie on its own rights. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

It is really a slap in the face to one of the most talented people in the business today to suggest they have compromised their artistic vision for a cheap round of headlines. As though a major franchise like this even needs the help!

Well then slap slap.

 

I think the term auteur goes out the window when you sign onto a tentpole flick like Bond.  I'm not mad, if the previews look good I'll go see this.  It is just very on brand for everything else that is happening in 2019.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Well, I can tell you I won't be watching this fucking movie. 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Yeah, that trailer certainly got my attention!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, number305 said:

I think the term auteur goes out the window when you sign onto a tentpole flick like Bond. 

 

Signing onto a tentpole film doesn't mean you have little creative control.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, number305 said:

Well then slap slap.

 

I think the term auteur goes out the window when you sign onto a tentpole flick like Bond.  I'm not mad, if the previews look good I'll go see this.  It is just very on brand for everything else that is happening in 2019.  

All the Craig Bonds are very much like the other works of the directors involved with the possible exception of Spectre, which didn’t have as much Mendes-y flair as I would have expected after Skyfall.

 

There doesn’t see to be any basis for your claim that it is stunt casting beyond your feeling that it must be that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

The movie is being directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. This will probably be the best Bond film ever made if Sin Nombre, Jane Eyre, Beasts of No Nation, True Detective season 1, and Maniac season 1 are anything to go by.

 

This isn't stunt casting. An auteur is working at the top of his game with top shelf talent to make a great Bond film. I don't know if this idea will work, but I have confidence it will. The only reason to call it "stunt casting" is to try to shame the idea, when the talent both in front of and behind the camera indicates everyone is taking the film quite seriously. The only way the film may not end up good is studio and/or producer interference, which is possible on big films like this (as always). Or the writing isn't there (which happens on some Bond films, to be fair).

No. 

 

No, no, no, no, no. 

 

No. 

 

What you fail to understand is that perpetually casting  unremarkable white men is not and in fact cannot possibly be pandering. I expected to be represented in all media at all times. 

 

However the casting of any minority (racial, sexual orientation, and so on) must inherently be pandering. 

 

I see me on screen and it is clearly made for everyone. I see a black woman cast in something and it must inherently be about wokeness, about pandering, about oh fuck I can’t go on anymore Jesus Christ. I can imagine that a 50 year old man can fuck any woman within seconds of engagement, kill anyone on the planet with generally modest effort, and that a giant with steel teeth can survive a building falling on his head. 

 

But you mean to tell me a BLACK WOMAN might have her name in cell B7 of an Excel file somewhere at MI6? THAT I CANNOT ABIDE. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

True story. There's actually a lot of notable films I've never seen. 

 

Not doubting you at all, and I am sure there are plenty of big well known flicks I've never seen. It's just there has been 24 of them to date so never having seen one, even accidentally, it's impressive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EternallDarkness said:

 

Not doubting you at all, and I am sure there are plenty of big well known flicks I've never seen. It's just there has been 24 of them to date so never having seen one, even accidentally, it's impressive. 

I've probably seen one on the TV at family's or something. Just never really paid any mind to it.

 

I mean, I was in my mid-20s before I ever saw Star Wars, I've still not seen The Godfather, Scarface, I'm sure the list could go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A story in which Bond, a well established womanizer, meets and works with his replacement: a woman, seems like a reasonable way to stretch him and add for some interesting dynamics to me. At least as interesting as character dynamics can be in a Bond film.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, number305 said:

Well then slap slap.

 

I think the term auteur goes out the window when you sign onto a tentpole flick like Bond.  I'm not mad, if the previews look good I'll go see this.  It is just very on brand for everything else that is happening in 2019.  

 

It's not "on brand". The world is simply changing permanently in a more representative, global direction, get with the times. 

 

4 hours ago, sblfilms said:

All the Craig Bonds are very much like the other works of the directors involved with the possible exception of Spectre, which didn’t have as much Mendes-y flair as I would have expected after Skyfall.

 

There doesn’t see to be any basis for your claim that it is stunt casting beyond your feeling that it must be that.

 

I agree - though I think Spectre is excellent until they get back to London in the 3rd act. Yeah, I said it! Otherwise I agree with you - though one could argue Quantum of Solace wasn't very Marc Forster-y, I think it was, it was just the writer's guild strike hampered that film's story a lot. Not Forster's fault really. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

No. 

 

No, no, no, no, no. 

 

No. 

 

What you fail to understand is that perpetually casting  unremarkable white men is not and in fact cannot possibly be pandering. I expected to be represented in all media at all times. 

 

However the casting of any minority (racial, sexual orientation, and so on) must inherently be pandering. 

 

I see me on screen and it is clearly made for everyone. I see a black woman cast in something and it must inherently be about wokeness, about pandering, about oh fuck I can’t go on anymore Jesus Christ. I can imagine that a 50 year old man can fuck any woman within seconds of engagement, kill anyone on the planet with generally modest effort, and that a giant with steel teeth can survive a building falling on his head. 

 

But you mean to tell me a BLACK WOMAN might have her name in cell B7 of an Excel file somewhere at MI6? THAT I CANNOT ABIDE. 

 

Sooo.... Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Daniel Craig and Pierce Brosnan were all "unremarkable white men"??

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, nublood said:

Sooo.... Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Daniel Craig and Pierce Brosnan were all "unremarkable white men"??

With the possible exception of Connery, yes? I don’t think this is an especially hot take. It’s telling that you ignored Dalton, Lazenby, and whoever played Bond before Connery, it’s almost like I have a point. :p They’re handsome fellows no doubt but none of those guys are regularly putting assess in seats outside of Bond other than Connery who’s perhaps most remarkable for his willingness to go on the record for thinking that women need to be hit sometimes. Craig is getting there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

With the possible exception of Connery, yes? I don’t think this is an especially hot take. It’s telling that you ignored Dalton, Lazenby, and whoever played Bond before Connery, it’s almost like I have a point. :p They’re handsome fellows no doubt but none of those guys are regularly putting assess in seats outside of Bond other than Connery who’s perhaps most remarkable for his willingness to go on the record for thinking that women need to be hit sometimes. Craig is getting there.

 

Yea? And how has stunt casting historically worked out for putting butts in the seats? If you think Bond needed a shot in the arm, this ain't it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, nublood said:

Yea? And how has stunt casting historically worked out for putting butts in the seats? If you think Bond needed a shot in the arm, this ain't it.

Casting black people isn’t stunt casting lel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nublood said:

 

Yea? And how has stunt casting historically worked out for putting butts in the seats? If you think Bond needed a shot in the arm, this ain't it.

 

Someone hasn't been reading the thread. There's no "stunt casting" here.

 

Believe people when they tell you who they are . . . good thing I speak subtext and coded language.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Commissar SFLUFAN changed the title to "No Time to Die" (Bond 25) - Trailer and Discussion Thread, update: MGM allegedly wants $600 million for streaming

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...