What backlash? The films were all financial successes and (broadly) critical success.
If a take can exist, it will exist. But a few people on the internet aren't indicative of anything.
But a few people on the internet aren't indicative of anything.
They actually are.
How is an unrepresentative sample (highly engaged fans) indicative of "backlash" against Daniel Craig?
The films made money, were broad critical successes. Bond became "big" culturally in a way he hadn't been in generations.
I'm more than content with Leiron and look forward to voting for her in the spring.
Uncle Jeff ahahaaha https://twitter.com/NBAFilmTweets/status/1577789478625845250/photo/1
Jeff Green low-key one of my favorite NBA guys ever since 2018 Cavs shenanigans brought him to my attention so I've been loving him as a Nugget. His heart story is great.
That'd rock
Load more comments
Overall it was pretty good. There was a lot of footage I had never seen before which was refreshing. I enjoyed the story about Michael Caine and Goldfinger. There was a bit too much focus on No Time to Die as compared to the others. I don’t understand why they chose to blatantly ignore For Your Eyes Only. It was an Oscar nominated best original song and it charted at number 4 on the US billboard rankings. Surely some stuff to discuss here? They also skipped over The Man With The Golden Gun, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. I find that disrespectful to those omitted artists. They also implied that John Barry quit after A View to a Kill. He came back for The Living Daylights, but no mention of that. Yes, it was a good documentary, but I question the omissions.
I saw the documentary at a cinema preview as part of the 60th celebrations and there was a talk afterwards with the director and David Arnold. I don’t recall all the specifics right now but the director talked about many things they had to cut for time that he wanted to include. He said EON delivered him a van load of archive footage and he could still be working on it and reviewing more footage if there hadn’t been a deadline to finish it. With 25 films and so many contributors over the years I think omissions are inevitable unless it’s a Peter Jackson documentary. Presumably they had a target time to keep to (though being released on Amazon you might think it could be any length).
Presumably they had a target time to keep to (though being released on Amazon you might think it could be any length)
Time = money
So a 90 minute special will cost less than an 120 minute special which costs less than 150 and so on. A documentary about the Beatles can be a billion hours long because, well, it's the story of the Beatles break up (probably popular music's biggest story ever) and everyone will watch it. So it's worth the added expense. But this really doesn't have all that going for that.
There was a bit too much focus on No Time to Die as compared to the others.
Because it's the most recent one made by one of the biggest pop stars (Eilish) that also happens to feature one of the biggest film composers (Zimmer). It also is one of the best if, as the special does, one is arguing for the emotional power of the Bond song.
He's going to pocket more in the divorce than he made over his career, and can easily score another supermodel 15 years younger that is less demanding of his time
He's going to pocket more in the divorce than he made over his career
This is incredibly unlikely. Most certainly had some kind of agreement, both of them.
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
That does sound so Fleming.
Karma
Cake day
+12Moderator of these communities
156 members
Trophy Case (4)
Seven-Year Club
Gilding III
reddit per annum
