317 replies to this topic

[R. Dittmar]

I'm sure the critical comments were addressed in rewrites. I'm sure the scope of the villain's ambitions have since increased.

 

"When I'm not working on my daddy issues, I'm planning to hijack NATO warheads, take up ballroom dancing and learn to love again."

[coco1997]

I too have been jonesing for a straightforward, "impersonal" James Bond film starring Daniel Craig. Based on these leaks, however, it appears we'll be getting another film in the vein of SKYFALL. And while I have hopes that BOND 25 might finally be that classic, old school-type Bond we've all been yearning for, at the same time I really want to see Craig star in an adaptation of Fleming's YOLT, which is a HUGELY personal story.

[Bucky]

Big fan of the Ocean's movies myself.  A bit disappointed in Ocean's 12 but thought Ocean's 13 made 12 a better movie.  Sometimes a new movie in a series can make previous movies better. hmmmmm

 

The same happened with me where The Bourne Ultimatum made me appreciate The Bourne Supermacy more.

[tdalton]

 

... If all of this hysteria was based on someone having actually gotten a look at the script and then deciding that it was terrible, that might be one thing, but that doesn't seem to be the case based on what those who have seen the information have said.

 

While the e-mail I read is far more encouraging about the twists than many of us are, it actually is kind of critical of the things that some of us are railing against here.  It does say that if they decide to go with the twist about SPECTRE's motivation that it could make the villain look very small and petty.  They encourage the screenwriters to punch things up a lot more to sell it.  Whoever wrote it also complains that they're not selling the twist about Bond at the very end very well either.

 

The fact that the e-mail is somewhat critical about the elements many of us are already finding ridiculous actually kind of sells it as genuine.  If it were the work of prankster fan-boys it would probably be more wildly enthusiastic.  "I LOVE the windsurfing! And when Jinx yells "Yo' mamma"? I LOVE IT!!"

 

 

Never said it wasn't genuine.  All I said was that it's a bit ridiculous to criticize elements of a screenplay when one hasn't seen the screenplay and doesn't know how those elements are incorporated.  Nobody here has seen the screenplay for SPECTRE and are relying simply on emails between studio executives who are discussing very specific elements of the story and not necessarily what context they are found within the screenplay.

[Harmsway]

Ok, just decided, this has the potential to be a very very interesting entry in the series. 

Spoiler

Mendes will, without a doubt, make it work like a shakesperian play, very much like Hamlet, I´d say. And that´s good in my book. Better than reinventing DAF again and trowing in everything but the kitchen sink to hide the ugly truth that is they´ve run out of fresh ideas. This is fresh, this is something that maybe even Fleming could have conjured up. Is it more ridiculous than world domination? Apocalyptic desires? I say no it isn´t. IF done right. And it probably will. I´m still more worried of cgi and nonsense action scenes than this.

The question isn't whether the villain's motivation is enough to sustain a one film, since I think it is.

 

The question is whether or not the motivation can possibly support the events of *all* of Craig's films. I'm not so sure of that. The question is how *big* they can make it all feel, and that's going to depend on Waltz as much as it is on the script (given the right material, I'm sure Waltz can succeed).

 

As the studio comments note, the danger here is that such a motivation may be too small to support the entirety of the Craig era. There has to be more to it. Hopefully that "more" has been added in rewrites, as they've tweaked the villain's backstory (and if you read the notes carefully, there does seem to be a *lot* of backstory there, but it's hard to piece it all together given that some of the comments are pretty vague) and his relationship with Bond.

[tdalton]

 

Ok, just decided, this has the potential to be a very very interesting entry in the series. 

Spoiler

Mendes will, without a doubt, make it work like a shakesperian play, very much like Hamlet, I´d say. And that´s good in my book. Better than reinventing DAF again and trowing in everything but the kitchen sink to hide the ugly truth that is they´ve run out of fresh ideas. This is fresh, this is something that maybe even Fleming could have conjured up. Is it more ridiculous than world domination? Apocalyptic desires? I say no it isn´t. IF done right. And it probably will. I´m still more worried of cgi and nonsense action scenes than this.

The question isn't whether the villain's motivation is enough to sustain a one film, since I think it is.

 

The question is whether or not the motivation can possibly support the events of *all* of Craig's films. I'm not so sure of that. The question is how *big* they can make it all feel, and that's going to depend on Waltz as much as it is on the script (given the right material, I'm sure Waltz can succeed).

 

I don't think that there's any motivation that they could give a villain that could put him behind the plots of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.  No matter what they come up with to support that, it's not going to be enough, IMO.  So, if that's a major point of contention on the studio's part, then it's going to be an issue in the final product, since there just isn't anything in any of those films to support a villain that they didn't even have the rights to use during the making of those films.

[coco1997]

I don't think that there's any motivation that they could give a villain that could put him behind the plots of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.  No matter what they come up with to support that, it's not going to be enough, IMO.  So, if that's a major point of contention on the studio's part, then it's going to be an issue in the final product, since there just isn't anything in any of those films to support a villain that they didn't even have the rights to use during the making of those films.

 

I wonder how people would have reacted had SPECTRE not been mentioned by name until YOLT at which point we'd have learned that Dr. No, Goldfinger, Largo, etc. were all working for Blofeld.

[tdalton]

 

I don't think that there's any motivation that they could give a villain that could put him behind the plots of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.  No matter what they come up with to support that, it's not going to be enough, IMO.  So, if that's a major point of contention on the studio's part, then it's going to be an issue in the final product, since there just isn't anything in any of those films to support a villain that they didn't even have the rights to use during the making of those films.

 

I wonder how people would have reacted had SPECTRE not been mentioned by name until YOLT at which point we'd have learned that Dr. No, Goldfinger, Largo, etc. were all working for Blofeld.

 

 

Not favorably, I'd imagine.  

 

Retconning stories with motivations that weren't there previously isn't a good idea, IMO.  They should focus on making SPECTRE stand on its own as its own story rather than riding the coat-tails of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.

[Harmsway]

From what we know, it seems that SPECTRE has been designed in part to make up for the failure of Quantum of Solace to adequately deliver on the ideas suggested by Casino Royale. It takes us right back to the beginning.

 

I seriously wonder whether the general audience will even be able to understand the film, given that it seems like you'll have to be very familiar with the preceding three Craig films to sort out what it all means.

[tdalton]

From what we know, it seems that SPECTRE has been designed in part to make up for the failure of Quantum of Solace to adequately deliver on the ideas suggested by Casino Royale. It takes us right back to the beginning.

 

I seriously wonder whether the general audience will even be able to understand the film, given that it seems like you'll have to be very familiar with the preceding three Craig films to sort out what it all means.

 

I knew that EON didn't care much for Quantum of Solace, but going back to basically retcon the film out of existence isn't a good way to go about addressing that.  It only serves to alienate those of us who actually did enjoy it.

[Invincible1958]

I seriously wonder whether the general audience will even be able to understand the film, given that it seems like you'll have to be very familiar with the preceding three Craig films to sort out what it all means.

 

Part of the success of the Bond movies over the years is, that you don't need to know the other films to understand the newest episode.

When they link two or more films together, they have to explain everything in SPECTRE, because no one but the fans would unterstand it otherwise.

 

So I think there will be explaining dialogue scenes for the public, that is not so familiar with the history of Bond.

Edited by Invincible1958, 12 December 2014 - 04:51 PM.

[Harmsway]

 

I knew that EON didn't care much for Quantum of Solace, but going back to basically retcon the film out of existence isn't a good way to go about addressing that.  It only serves to alienate those of us who actually did enjoy it.

 

It doesn't appear that they're retconning Quantum of Solace out of existence, but SPECTRE's story does make Quantum of Solace seem even more extraneous and half-hearted than it already did.

[tdalton]

 

 

I knew that EON didn't care much for Quantum of Solace, but going back to basically retcon the film out of existence isn't a good way to go about addressing that.  It only serves to alienate those of us who actually did enjoy it.

 

It doesn't appear that they're retconning Quantum of Solace out of existence, but SPECTRE's story does make Quantum of Solace seem even more extraneous and half-hearted than it already did.

 

 

So, basically if Quantum of Solace is your favorite Craig-Bond film, then you're probably going to hate SPECTRE?

 

I don't find Quantum of Solace to be extraneous or half-hearted, and the constant trashing of that film by EON is rather off-putting.  

[Hockey Mask]

I am a fan of QoS.  Hoping I like it even more after SPECTRE.

[Harmsway]

So, basically if Quantum of Solace is your favorite Craig-Bond film, then you're probably going to hate SPECTRE?

Not necessarily.

 

But, look, I consider Quantum of Solace a fairly wretched film (almost certainly the franchise's biggest disappointment), both as a film in its own right and as a follow-up to Casino Royale. So I don't really know how to gauge how someone who loves Quantum of Solace would feel about what they're doing here. It's not as though they're rewriting Quantum of Solace outright (after all, Mr. White is back, as we all know, so it's definitely relying on Quantum of Solace somewhat).

 

Let's put it this way: SPECTRE re-opens the book on some things that Quantum of Solace appeared to put to bed. The answers Bond got in Quantum of Solace to the questions left lingering after the end of Casino Royale aren't the full story.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I think that P&W were brought in to pump things up, to raise the stakes above soap opera-ish motives.
I myself have always enjoyed QoS, my only problem with it is its too frantic pace and shakycam. I am actually very happy that SPECTRE will have references towards it.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 12 December 2014 - 05:48 PM.

[Hansen]

 

 

Never said it wasn't genuine.  All I said was that it's a bit ridiculous to criticize elements of a screenplay when one hasn't seen the screenplay and doesn't know how those elements are incorporated.  Nobody here has seen the screenplay for SPECTRE and are relying simply on emails between studio executives who are discussing very specific elements of the story and not necessarily what context they are found within the screenplay.

 

True but as far as I am concerned, it shows that it is definitely not going the route I expected. By very far..

[Guy Haines]

I'll be surprised if the villain's main motive in Spectre will be as barely described in a few scraps of information leaked onto "t'internet" (As we say round here!). It may be part of it, but all of it - I doubt it.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are references back to the previous films. The inclusion of the character Mr White makes that highly likely. And I wouldn't be surprised either if a link is established between Bond and "Oberhauser" - we've got a whole thread here devoted to the mystery of who exactly that man is.

 

I'm not horrified about Spectre. I am intrigued, the more I think about it. But I refuse to be dismayed on the basis of internet traffic, some of which may prove far from accurate come the finished movie next November. I imagine some pretty whacked out ideas emerge during early script development of any film. That's why they have re-writes - to produce a script for a film which a mainstream audience will accept - and it's that audience, as much as, if not more than the die hard fans which the film will seek to attract.

[plankattack]

 I imagine some pretty whacked out ideas emerge during early script development of any film. That's why they have re-writes - to produce a script for a film which a mainstream audience will accept - and it's that audience, as much as, if not more than the die hard fans which the film will seek to attract.

 

Wasn't there a rumour before QoS that a story idea was Bond or Vesper having a child? And yet by the time the finished product arrives, there isn't a trace, even a moment, when you could say "Oh, that took a right turn there instead of a left."

 

Scripts go through a multitude of drafts, rewrites, adjustments, and one thing for sure is that three different sets of eyes (counting P&W as one joint set!!!) have been on Spectre with explicit instructions to add/subtract. And looking at the specific strengths and order of involvement of the writers, there's a clear logic as to how things could have gone:

 

Logan - 1st draft, pitching original idea. Probably not too many limitations - free hand to establish an idea. Could all stay, could all get binned (see Peter Morgan, or the legions of writers that worked on TSWLM or TND, to name two films. Anthony Burgess, anyone???)

 

P&W - next up, explicit instructions to "Fleming-ize". Makes sense, the team know their source material (very well, IMHO, and something that I'm not sure we have always given them credit for), and they also know EON's relationship with the character and the source material (a fascinating discussion that we've had over the years). 

 

Jez Butterworth - knows Mendes, established playwright/screenwriter, punching up and dialing down where necessary to put the final arranging in place (similar to Haggis on CR perhaps?).

 

Speculation on my part? Of course. But to me, at least, it does speak to some quality control (not to mention the input of the director, producers, and the lead,) as to what will eventually end up on screen.

 

I'd be a lot more concerned if Bond was in any way an "auteur" product. But it's not. Mendes is now on his second Bond - he knows how this particular production company work. If this was his first film with EON then maybe you could voice a concern that "this guy with his artistic trappings doesn't get Bond" but I don't see that argument flying, not after SF.

 

To be honest, I'd love to know the authors of those e-mails - if it was the usual studio stooges then I might be worried. Some of the rubbish down at the cinema has me questioning those that make big money at the studios these days! As for EON, they know what they're doing, and more importantly, there know full well the product that they "own." 

[mdileo007]

 

 I imagine some pretty whacked out ideas emerge during early script development of any film. That's why they have re-writes - to produce a script for a film which a mainstream audience will accept - and it's that audience, as much as, if not more than the die hard fans which the film will seek to attract.

 

Wasn't there a rumour before QoS that a story idea was Bond or Vesper having a child? And yet by the time the finished product arrives, there isn't a trace, even a moment, when you could say "Oh, that took a right turn there instead of a left."

 

Scripts go through a multitude of drafts, rewrites, adjustments, and one thing for sure is that three different sets of eyes (counting P&W as one joint set!!!) have been on Spectre with explicit instructions to add/subtract. And looking at the specific strengths and order of involvement of the writers, there's a clear logic as to how things could have gone:

 

Logan - 1st draft, pitching original idea. Probably not too many limitations - free hand to establish an idea. Could all stay, could all get binned (see Peter Morgan, or the legions of writers that worked on TSWLM or TND, to name two films. Anthony Burgess, anyone???)

 

P&W - next up, explicit instructions to "Fleming-ize". Makes sense, the team know their source material (very well, IMHO, and something that I'm not sure we have always given them credit for), and they also know EON's relationship with the character and the source material (a fascinating discussion that we've had over the years). 

 

Jez Butterworth - knows Mendes, established playwright/screenwriter, punching up and dialing down where necessary to put the final arranging in place (similar to Haggis on CR perhaps?).

 

Speculation on my part? Of course. But to me, at least, it does speak to some quality control (not to mention the input of the director, producers, and the lead,) as to what will eventually end up on screen.

 

I'd be a lot more concerned if Bond was in any way an "auteur" product. But it's not. Mendes is now on his second Bond - he knows how this particular production company work. If this was his first film with EON then maybe you could voice a concern that "this guy with his artistic trappings doesn't get Bond" but I don't see that argument flying, not after SF.

 

To be honest, I'd love to know the authors of those e-mails - if it was the usual studio stooges then I might be worried. Some of the rubbish down at the cinema has me questioning those that make big money at the studios these days! As for EON, they know what they're doing, and more importantly, there know full well the product that they "own." 

 

All good points Plankattack.

 

And for those who are freaking out about the leaks -- if you've read them, you can clearly see that pages 1, 2 and 4 are notes that refer to a very early draft of the script.

 

But page 3 is an email directed at "you guys."  Its a clear reference to P&W and its seems pretty obvious that the writer of the email is referring to what must have been their initial revision.

 

The good news is that this writer (Sony exec of some sort?) raves about the quality of the revision.  He (or she) states that their are "so many classic scenes " in the revision and that the first 100 pages "fly by and are terribly exciting."  His only reservation with the script is that he feels that the last 40 pages or so need some work to tie everything together.

[seawolfnyy]

 

 

 

I knew that EON didn't care much for Quantum of Solace, but going back to basically retcon the film out of existence isn't a good way to go about addressing that.  It only serves to alienate those of us who actually did enjoy it.

 

It doesn't appear that they're retconning Quantum of Solace out of existence, but SPECTRE's story does make Quantum of Solace seem even more extraneous and half-hearted than it already did.

 

 

So, basically if Quantum of Solace is your favorite Craig-Bond film, then you're probably going to hate SPECTRE?

 

I don't find Quantum of Solace to be extraneous or half-hearted, and the constant trashing of that film by EON is rather off-putting.  

 

That's not at all, how I see it. I think if anything SPECTRE will be directly related to Quantum of Solace, especially with Mr. White's return. Quantum of Solace gets a lot of flack that truly is undeserved. The film is definitely the weakest of the Craig's 3, but I fault the producers more than anyone. It began filming with an incomplete script and without actual screenwriters available to do rewrites. Had the producers delayed the film until 2009, I think it would've turned out better. As it stands, Craig still gives arguably a better performance in Quantum of Solace than in Casino Royale and the film is still better than 3/4 of Brosnan's films and 5 of Moore's.

[Harmsway]

And for those who are freaking out about the leaks -- if you've read them, you can clearly see that pages 1, 2 and 4 are notes that refer to a very early draft of the script.

 

But page 3 is an email directed at "you guys."  Its a clear reference to P&W and its seems pretty obvious that the writer of the email is referring to what must have been their initial revision.

 

Pages 1/2 are one draft. The character names are different, locations are different too.

 

But pages 3 (the "you guys" email, which, I agree, was probably directed at P&W) and 4 (the random notes that appear to deal with the middle section of the film) appear to refer to the same draft--or at least similar drafts--if you compare the details. The email and those notes mention some of the same things, and the notes clearly don't belong with pages 1 and 2, because the character names have been mostly updated to what was announced at the press conference (with one significant exception).

[Fairbanks]

Stepping back a moment from the question of whether these leaks are encouraging or ominous, is anyone else just fascinated to see the sausage being made? I love to see a story being written from the ground up. It excites the same part of my brain that loves to watch a carpenter building a piece of furniture. It's too bad that writers tend to conduct this process in strict secrecy. Of course, I understand why they do. As this thread illustrates, people tend to pass swift and uncharitable judgment on rough drafts and unguarded shop talk. So thank goodness for our North Korean benefactors, without whom this awkward stage in the creative process would have remained decorously hidden. It will be fascinating to compare these early outlines to the final version. 

[Harmsway]

Stepping back a moment from the question of whether these leaks are encouraging or ominous, is anyone else just fascinated to see the sausage being made?

Absolutely. This is a rare glimpse into the filmmaking process.

Also, I'd like to add that, aside from the concerns about the villain's motivation and how this relates to other Craig-era pictures, there's a lot of good material mentioned here, too. Some of the grace notes mentioned here sound absolutely terrific. It's clear that they're pursuing a "classic Bond" vibe beyond anything the Craig era has given us to date.

[coco1997]

Also, I'd like to add that, aside from the concerns about the villain's motivation and how this relates to other Craig-era pictures, there's a lot of good material mentioned here, too. Some of the grace notes mentioned here sound absolutely terrific. It's clear that they're pursuing a "classic Bond" vibe beyond anything the Craig era has given us to date.

 

The location descriptions alone suggest that this should be another vibrant and beautiful-looking Bond film.

[Harmsway]

The locations for SPECTRE are positively fantastic (as is the amount of on-location they're scheduled to do). With Hoyte van Hoytema and Mendes, I'm sure it's going to be nothing short of breathtaking.

[whitesox]

 

 

I don't think that there's any motivation that they could give a villain that could put him behind the plots of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.  No matter what they come up with to support that, it's not going to be enough, IMO.  So, if that's a major point of contention on the studio's part, then it's going to be an issue in the final product, since there just isn't anything in any of those films to support a villain that they didn't even have the rights to use during the making of those films.

 

I wonder how people would have reacted had SPECTRE not been mentioned by name until YOLT at which point we'd have learned that Dr. No, Goldfinger, Largo, etc. were all working for Blofeld.

 

 

Not favorably, I'd imagine.  

 

Retconning stories with motivations that weren't there previously isn't a good idea, IMO.  They should focus on making SPECTRE stand on its own as its own story rather than riding the coat-tails of Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall.

 

Very true.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Its going to be an interesting film and probably a good (maybe great) movie, I just think its wrong for the characters - and "Blofeld's" motivation is high school intellectualism at best - They could easily have this story without the stupid past stuff, they can be nemesis because Bond stopped his plans  - that part of the film has obviously stuck to a degree because the reference is still there

Well said, agree 100%.

[west]

A very interesting point was raised about what it would have been like if SPECTRE wasn't mentioned until You Only Live Twice, where it was reviled that Dr. No et al. were working for this organisation all along. To be honest, I think that could've been fantastic, and a real climactic and stunning revelation. However, it would all be dependant on the preceding films remaining the same and that the motivations and bigger picture behind the villains were known to the writers (and we as the audience were kept in the dark, like Bond, until the reveal).

 

In that respect, such a reveal about SPECTRE's link to the previous Craig films could be a great, stunning moment. But that would all be contingent on if it is done in such a convincing way that it all makes sense and is almost blatant (like it was obvious all along, how was it missed?). This link of the Craig-Era to SPECTRE, with the potential reveal four films in, would needed to have been planned all along, since Casino Royal, if it were to be such a defining part of the Craig-Era lore.

 

My big concern is that is has not been planned. Firstly, the notes in the leak seem to suggest that the reveal is underwhelming and needs work and that it makes the organisation feel small. If this were planned for a considerable amount of time, I'd have expected the moment of reveal and the links to the preceding Craig films to have been planned out more thoroughly by the producers. The impression I get is that they are trying to make the preceding Craig film match the reveal, rather than have it all lead to the moment of reveal. Rather like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

 

This is the same feeling I have about Quantum as an organisation. It felt to me like the producers wanted to capitalise on the commercial and critical success of Casino Royale and make a direct follow up featuring the organisation behind Le Chifre. What to call the organisation? They wanted to use a Fleming title, so let's make a real stretch and call the organisation 'Quantum', just to try to make it fit in with the title. And really, what a terrible name that was for a villainous group. That's an example where a reveal was forced for convenience.

 

My other concern is that, as far as I'm aware, outside of keen Bond fandom, Quantum of Solace, and it's loose ends, is fairly forgotten about. Most of the people I speak to (who are Bond fans in so far as they see each movie when it comes out), can't even remember the Quantum organisation, or who Mr. White is, much less want to know what happened to them. Quantum as an organisation failed to register in the public consciousness. So has Mr. White.

 

If the intent is to link Quantum to SPECTRE then perhaps the best way to do so would be to very briefly mention Quantum as being the organisations finance arm, or that SPECTRE was formed by a splinter group of the more extreme, grandiose planners of Quantum.

 

It could be great, but unless this was all planned since Casino Royale (which I doubt), it would require a very, very well constructed and water tight script to pull off in a satisfying way that such a reveal would deserve.

[R. Dittmar]

Its going to be an interesting film and probably a good (maybe great) movie, I just think its wrong for the characters - and "Blofeld's" motivation is high school intellectualism at best - They could easily have this story without the stupid past stuff, they can be nemesis because Bond stopped his plans - that part of the film has obviously stuck to a degree because the reference is still there

Well said, agree 100%.

Just to further play devil's advocate here, if they really plan to have SPECTRE behind the villainy in the earlier films then in what sense did Bond really do much to stop their plans? They would have whacked Le Chiffre no matter what because he was embezzling from their clients. Bond just hurried that along. Did Bond really put a stop to that coup in Bolivia? What's-her-name killed the General, but was one of his flunkies next in line to sign over the water rights anyway? I don't know. And what was the plan with Silva? I thought it was to kill M and that actually succeeded. Bond probably didn't even hit SPECTRE's bottom line! They just went ahead and wrote-off that unusually flammable hotel as a tax deduction.