MovieChat Forums > TreeShaman > Replies
TreeShaman's Replies
"Cancelled" is the word appearing in most headlines. It doesn't mean permanently cancelled, but filming dates have been officially cancelled.
I will still bet that the whole movie will eventually be cancelled though. Next will be more delays with the incomplete script which further postpones filming, then cast members will be leaving the set to make their other scheduled commitments (you really think Rami Malek is going to sit around and wait for EON to get their act together when he is the most sought after actor in the industry?). Bond 25 will be released before 2025 if we're lucky. The 2020 release date is a farce.
In Canada we have these totalitarian kangaroo courts called human rights tribunals. I'm not sure if the UK has those, but perhaps Bond can be found guilty and end up in jail for making an off-colour joke.
Didn't Bond already have something of a #metoo moment though? Judi Dench's M scolded him for being a misogynist dinosaur or whatever she said in GoldenEye, and that was seen as Bond finally getting with the times. I don't know why EON feels the need to constantly ride these cultural waves, but with the constant delays, #metoo will be a thing of the past by the time this film even gets released and our dumb culture will have already moved on to the next liberal fad.
It's not even really speculation at this point. The writers have clearly said that they are adding explicit #metoo content, whatever that even means. Maybe he will be killed or castrated by a woman for sleeping around? Your guess is as good as mine.
John Glen is awesome. He is either the Director or Second Unit Director in all of my top-3 Bond films: TLD, OHMSS, and FYEO. And did he ever know how to film an action scene. FYEO, OP, and TLD all have some incredible chases and action scenes. He also knows how to pace a film properly. I never get the urge to skip ahead or to start browsing on my smartphone during one of his films. He can keep my attention while few other film directors can.
Goes to show how wildly opinions can change over the years. It's crazy that the reviewer claims that Goldfinger and Moonraker(!) are the two best Bond films.
I have no idea why this one seems to be having a revival among fans in recent years. It is right near the bottom of the list for me, and easily Moore's worst. This is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.
My ranking for Moore is:
FYEO
TMWTGG
LALD
AVTAK
OP
MR
TSWLM
It's not unusual for actors from previous Bond films to be brought back as different characters in later installments, and I don't like this. Joe Don Baker was the main villain in The Living Daylights, and then only two films later he returned as a different character in GoldenEye and then again in Tomorrow Never Dies.
To pay for the Icarus project and everything else in Graves' criminal organization.
Because it's a cool idea that resulted in a shocking twist. And there is a deeper meaning which ends up being explored towards the end of the film: General Moon rejects his son because of the gene therapy, even though he knows that Graves truly is his son.
I think he's pawning the diamonds in Cuba to pay for his gene therapy and to remain untraceable since he is kind of going rogue from the NK authorities and so that he isn't traced back to Graves. The therapy is happening at an actual clinic under the supervision of a doctor which all needs to be paid for, unlike Graves who had his own machine in Iceland.
Yes! This is definitely it. I didn't realize it was part of a trilogy.
The delay between LTK and GE was because of legal disputes over the rights to the James Bond character which went all the way back to the disputes between Fleming and McClory over the Thunderball story. So that kind of delay is understandable. The entire series was in jeopardy.
In my eyes, there is no correlation between quality and quantity in this series. So I don't agree with common sentiment that waiting four or five years is worth it because the quality is likely to increase. I don't think that's the case at all, and in the case of Bond 25, they have literally been sitting on their asses for years doing nothing. They don't even have a script finished after multiple revisions and emergency re-writes and they've already started filming. It doesn't even seem like they started working on any script at all until around last year which is already quite a long time after SPECTRE was released.
So I would prefer a return to the release schedule that we saw in the Brosnan era where we had a new Bond film every two years on average. Brosnan made four films in just over seven years. Connery, Lazenby, and Moore combined were pumping out films nearly every year since the series started. And I don't see any benefit in waiting so long. Sometimes Bond films are instant classics, and other times they are atrocious. Just as an example, most people consider AVTAK to be the worst Bond film ever, and I agree it's pretty bad, but then TLD only two years later is my personal favourite and is generally recognized as a strong entry. So EON could have taken 5+ years off after the AVTAK disaster, but instead they just got back to work and created an instant classic in only two years. Craig wants to be emo and whine about slashing his wrists rather than working though.
She absolutely would, and she would even be willing to wait 10+ years for him if necessary. I wouldn't expect these insane 5 year delays to be resolved anytime soon. Craig has already become way too old after only five films. He could have already pumped out five films by as early as 2016 if he followed the typical pattern of one film every two years, but he's a lazy entitled brat who wants to take his sweet time and make other crappy unsuccessful films while still expecting the Bond role to be waiting for him when its convenient for him.
Craig's Bond is not a reboot. The films are not in chronological order, nor do they have to be. CR would have been filmed long ago if EON had the rights to do so, and once they earned the rights it made sense to film that with a new actor and have something that resembles an origin story, but every Bond we've seen in the official EON series is the same man.
Craig has turned out to be the worst Bond ever after a promising start. SPECTRE was supposed to be his last,now 25 is definitely supposed to be his last, but I can already see little hints being dropped in interviews that the door is still open for him to return. So in five years Craig will be back yet again in Bond 26 for some Christopher Nolan copycat dark and edgy shitfest.
I thought the rumors pointed towards this idiocy being Craig's idea, not Boyle's. I guess we'll never know, but just about every bizarre rumor in the past year has turned out to be true, so I fully expect Bond to die in this one because Craig is arrogant and thinks that he is so good that he gets to be the final and definitive Bond.
In what way has Bond ever been 'progressive?' That's absurd.
I tried watching the one from 2015 which I don't remember the name of, and I thought it was one of the worst movies I had ever seen, and I couldn't finish it. As bad as Skyfall and SPECTRE were, I will still take a Bond movie over the awful MI movies any day.
I couldn't believe this when I heard the announcement...but actually, I can believe it with how shitty of a job Broccoli and EON are doing. The problem now is that unlike in the past where following trends resulted in silliness (kung fu in TMWTTG) or a crappy movie at worst (awful special effects in TWINE and DAD), copying recent trends (Marxism, feminism, #metoo, Marvel Cinematic Universe-style saga) this time will actually destroy the character and series.
I was just watching an interview with Rami Malek where he said something like "maybe you will even side with my villain character." That sounds awful to me. Villains are supposed to be these larger than life bad guys in Bond movies, and there isn't supposed to be moral ambiguity about it. I suspect that Malek means that his villain will be some kind of terrorist, but he's only a terrorist because of the 'evil' things that Bond and Britain have done to whatever part of the world Malek's character is from. Since this is in Jamaica, maybe it will be some radical Jamaican terrorist who is trying to get revenge on Britain for the 'evils' of colonialism or something like that. But the problem is that these Marxist filmmakers are going to actually exalt Malek's villain to the same level as a loyal patriot like Bond, and thus create confusion in the viewer's mind about who is really the evil one. Maybe the indigenous British conservative patriot who is willing to die in the line of duty for Queen and country is actually the 'bad' guy. Imagine how disgraceful that would be if this is actually the creative direction they go in.
k.d. Lang's song is good, but it wouldn't have been a good choice for the title sequence. Crow's song fits the theme and the graphics of the title sequence much better. "Worst decision ever made" is quite a ridiculous stretch. When you look at rejected Bond theme songs over the years, it's pretty clear that EON has typically made the right choices even though some of the rejected songs are quite good in their own right.