half of the movie will be good, half will be unwatchable
Saw an interview with the main actors on Graham Norton the other day. Don't ordinarily watch it as I can't stand the guy but anyway, Daniel Craig looked on edge the whole interview.
Every time one of the other actors were talking the camera kept cutting to him and he looked like he was nervous as hell. Maybe that they'd spoiler something or just say the whole thing was a shit show. Lynch and Seydoux really didn't seem like they had a good thing to say about the experience but were being borderline polite throughout.
This should give a feel for it.
Saw an interview with the main actors on Graham Norton the other day. Don't ordinarily watch it as I can't stand the guy but anyway, Daniel Craig looked on edge the whole interview.
Every time one of the other actors were talking the camera kept cutting to him and he looked like he was nervous as hell. Maybe that they'd spoiler something or just say the whole thing was a shit show. Lynch and Seydoux really didn't seem like they had a good thing to say about the experience but were being borderline polite throughout.
This should give a feel for it.
Fan theory to explain time period discrepancies.I don't understand all this talk about people wondering if James Bond is the same person through the entire franchise. Of course it's the same person! When did anyone start thinking otherwise?
because people see different Bond actors and they get confused with 007. they think 007 is a job title instead of an employee number and every Bond actor is a new 007.I don't understand all this talk about people wondering if James Bond is the same person through the entire franchise. Of course it's the same person! When did anyone start thinking otherwise?
I would guess it has more to do with the fact Bond has been an active agent for 70 years (in Dr. No he is no newbie even if its the first mission we see).because people see different Bond actors and they get confused with 007. they think 007 is a job title instead of an employee number and every Bond actor is a new 007.
My understanding is that her character was added in the script by the director. I read something to that effect in an interview of Armas.2) They didn't advertise Ana de Armas at all, this is the first time I'm seeing her. What the fuck, I actually want to see her as a badass Bond girl. I don't trust them to actually have her get with Bond.
thats what i said. 007 has had so many actors, that people are confused. dummies dont realize his name is always James Bond.I would guess it has more to do with the fact Bond has been an active agent for 70 years (in Dr. No he is no newbie even if its the first mission we see).
I am not talking about the actors, I am talking about the character, as he is seen in the movies. The action of the James Bond films are not outside of time : the cold war disappeared, internet, cell phones and smart phones appeared. The action of the Bond film takes place in the "present times" of the movies releases. So this one James Bond character has been a veteran spy in the early '60s and pushed into retirement in the early '10s and he is still around 10 years later. It makes no rational sense, it's just something one has to accept when walking into a James Bond film. People going the "it's the name of the job, not of the person" just try to rationalize something that is not meant to.thats what i said. 007 has had so many actors, that people are confused. dummies dont realize his name is always James Bond.
oh, i never even thought of that as a thing. i rather like it the way it is now. always cutting edge tech, it would be boring if they kept it at 1960s tech.I am not talking about the actors, I am talking about the character, as he is seen in the movies. The action of the James Bond films are not outside of time : the cold war disappeared, internet, cell phones and smart phones appeared. The action of the Bond film takes place in the "present times" of the movies releases. So this one James Bond character has been a veteran spy in the early '60s and pushed into retirement in the early '10s and he is still around 10 years later. It makes no rational sense, it's just something one has to accept when walking into a James Bond film. People going the "it's the name of the job, not of the person" just try to rationalize something that is not meant to.
It would be completely different if they decided to set all the films in the '60s and slowly move toward the '70s. They are doing something like that in the OSS 117 serie for instance (spy / comedy / satire films based on french spy novels that predate Fleming's James Bond). The first film is set in the late '50s, the second in the late '60s and the third in the late '70s.
oh, i never even thought of that as a thing. i rather like it the way it is now. always cutting edge tech, it would be boring if they kept it at 1960s tech.
i disagree, one of the better Bond type movies in the past decade was Man from Uncle starring Superman. Set in the 1960s, the vibe and style was super cool and most importantly all the plot points can revolve around USA vs USSR and keeping it underground and cold, so as not to erupt in full blown war.
Now every spy movie has to tap dance around the fact that western spies can't really infiltrate Al Queda or Al Shabab or the Chinese communist party. Instead every bad guy tends to be a stupid vaguely Eastern European with completely silly plot points. I mean for gods sakes the plot for Quantum of Solace was that an evil corporation wanted to STEAL ALL THE WATER IN PARAGUAY AND SELL THEM BOTTLED WATER. what the fuck is that shit lol
Sadly Man from UNCLE bombed in theaters so we'll never get good shit like that again until Hollywood recycles back to this idea