Yes, it’s called ‘Worlds Of DC’ now.
I can see the corporate accountancy logic behind this; Suicide Squad was successful despite being critically panned and Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn was generally considered the best part. Wonder Woman was their only unqualified success. Put those things together and throwing Harley Quinn into an all female superhero ensemble seems like a good idea on paper. In practice it feels like yet another overreaction from Warner Bros.
Er, no.
Why am I not surprised to see you believe this?
The twenty-teens end on the last day of 2019. Just as the current millennium began on January 1st, 2000.
The absence of year “0” is irrelevant.
Ohhh, thar’s a-gonna be some fightin’ now, pards!
3 Likes
5 Likes
Really? So the 1970’s include the year 1980?? Meaning the 1980’s only starts in 1981??
If nothing else it shows original thinking…
4 Likes
Reading the actual article, Aston is more likely, as they’re able to get someone from Aston Martin to talk about it and they point out just how good their relationship with EON is and how recent their last collaboration was. Unless Fukunaga really NEEDS a Lotus, I expect Aston Martin to be back.
Why not have both?
1 Like
This is true. I assumed that they couldn’t have competing firms prominently featured, but Spectre obviously proved that assumption wrong.
DAD had prominent Jags and the Aston in the ice chase. Or did they get round that because the Aston was invisible 
Personally I don’t want a sports car - Aston/Lotus or whatever in the film at all unless the story clearly calls for it.
CR had a great way of including it, which was all the better because bond had been driving a ford up to that point.
SF contrived a rather weak reason that ticked the 50th anniversary box, but negated the flow of story.
SP worked fine because he stole it.
What I don’t want is Q giving him a ‘special’ sports car just because that’s what happens in bond movies (such as DAD).
If anything he’d get a very plain looking car that did special things rather than one everyone stares at.
For me it’s a tired and disfunctional old trope that bond gets an expensive sports car in order blend into a rich set, when the villains always know who he is and if not he quickly tells them.
Maybe Bond 25 should put him in an Uber!
Both where Ford owned at the time. Aston until 2007 (hence CR’s Ford ad) Jaguar until 2008.
3 Likes
I would love him to get a new car by Q, with new extras we haven’t seen before, outfitted for the new mission.
Or he could steal one from the main baddie.
But Bond without a special car… well, if it explodes rather early on and he has to make do with a small… oh, wait… can there really be a new idea about this?
I’d like this - perhaps on the phone to Q for help figuring it out. Not mid chase though - did that in SP, which merely served to deminish and over lengthen the chase rather than enhance it.
But speaking of rehashing things I’d prefer a rehash of FYEO’s Lotus self destruct early doors than a by-the-numbers Q and car scene that’s designed to sell toys rather than tell story.
If a decade is defined as ten years, then 10 A.D. was part of the aughts of the first millennium. In a similar fashion 1980 was the tenth and final year of decade of the 1970’s and the third millennium started on January 1, 2001 and not January 1, 2000 (though round number bias had a strong effect on the cultural conversation around this fact).
But the number is how many years have passed. Not years you are on, we are in the 56th year of Bond movies, but it wont be till October you say Bond on film is 56. you start from zero. Same reason there are 1000 possibilities in a 3 digit number.
Yes, please, let’s debate this till the year 2100, or the start of the 22nd century, whichever comes first.
2 Likes
Slow news day, eh!
So if BOND 25 is released in 2020…
2 Likes
But it wasn’t the first millennium. The world didn’t suddenly appear in 1 A.D. Life didn’t suddenly pop up.
No, no, no, no! Typically careless pedantry. At best, 1980 appears to have been the final year of the 198th(?) decade of the AD era. See the difference?
…as well as common sense.
Time-keeping in general has been historically highly arbitrary.
Sixth century (AD) monk Dionysius Exiguus invented the BC/AD system. But the world at large didn’t widely use it until after 800 AD. Moreover, ol’ Dyin’ Ziggy’s calculations appear to have been off by approximately five years. For now let’s sweep those five or so years under the mat, shall we?
Ancient calendars had anywhere between 304 and 378 days in a year.
Once upon a time the New Year fell in the middle of March (Babylonia circa 2000 BC - the first full moon after the vernal equinox), and then on March 1st (ancient Rome). Makes more sense for agrarian societies to celebrate New Year when spring is fast around the corner. January and February were late additions to the calendar. That’s why leap year occurs at the end of February - supposedly the final day of the year. Somewhere between 153 BC and 46 BC these two months moved to the front but not New Year’s Day.
To synchronize the increasingly out-of-kilter Roman calendar and the solar year, Julius Caesar decreed that what we now call the year 46 BC (708 AUC) would have 445 days and New Year’s would occur on January 1st. The year would now have 365 days with an extra day occurring once every three years. It should have been four but those pesky Church elders apparently couldn’t count.
But over in Britain - and its considerable colonies - March 25th heralded the start of the New Year until 1752 (“Calendar (New Style) Act 1750”).
“In England and Wales, the legal year 1751 was a short year of 282 days, running from 25 March to 31 December. 1752 began on 1 January. To align the calendar in use in England to that on the continent, the Gregorian calendar was adopted, and the calendar was advanced by 11 days: Wednesday 2 September 1752 was followed by Thursday 14 September 1752. The year 1752 was thus a short year (355 days) as well.”
Along the way most of the world adopted leap year to synchronize the Solar/Tropical and Calendar years. The Egyptians proposed it in 238 BC but didn’t adopt it until circa 25 BC. The Romans got there before them adopting it in 45 BC, but the British Empire and its colonies didn’t implement it until the 1750s.
Most pre-modern history is chronologically doubtful anyway, so you might as well insert a year “0” - with anything from 0 days to 365 days - and pretend it had always been there. Or you may want to allocate to it those five or so missing years D’Ziggy overlooked, assuming of course that he did overlook them.
Since it’s all arbitrary and conjectural, why not keep it sensible & simple and make decades/centuries/millennia divisible by their base number?
The calendar has no real existence outside the human mind. It’s not a law of physics. The reality is that time is a continuous flow with no intrinsic dividing points.
Not unless you know when the world was created. If so, do tell. Betcha it wasn’t a year ending in “0001”. Or on the first day of a January.
FWIW, scientific dating (e.g. Astronomical year numbering) dispenses with the BC/AD system, instead using +/-. We’re in the year +2018. 1 BC becomes year 0 and the year 2 BC becomes -1.
Hope this clears everything up. The millennium began in 2000. B25 comes out in the first year of the next decade. Class dismissed.
Are we really arguing about this?
2 Likes