453 replies to this topic

[kneelbeforezod]

I think it's easy to overstate the acrimony. This sounds like standard stuff to me just hyped up in emails (just speaking from personal experience, gripes in corporate emails tend to over-emphasize the reality). Obviously not everybody on a project of this size gets along. There's more enthusiasm and positive commentary as there is negativity, and sometimes it appears the negativity stems from folks not being on the same page (there's a note from Sam Mendes to Amy Pascal explaining that the October draft was completed just to get the budget/schedule in order, and that the third act wasn't finished when it was submitted for their perusal).

 

I honestly think this stuff is more business as usual than folks are making it out to be. There was a moment where development on Bond 24 wasn't going smoothly (seemingly early May 2014, when Logan and Mendes delivered a long-delayed rewrite and the major parties agreed that it was inferior to the previous drafts), but I don't see much evidence of dramatic infighting beyond that. If you look at the behind-the-scenes material on the other Sony products, you get the vibe that this is just how things go in the movie business.

Yes very reasonable although I think you are slightly overstating how "business as usual" it is to be rewriting key confrontations between Bond and Blofeld days before shooting. That is not ideal. Usually scripts *are* locked down earlier than this. I'm not sure about the exact timings, but weren't Mendes and Logan working for like a year and still ended up with a script that was considered very flawed? Again, not smooth sailing and although it does happen, many films come together easier than this. Doesn't Pascal say at one point pretty late in the day "there is something wrong with this movie, it doesn't want to come together!" or words to that effect? 

 

The script I read had a key poker scene, dated 1st December. Shooting started 8th December. That scene was completely thrown out and reworked days before or during shooting. 

 

Contrast that with the Steve Jobs script, which everyone loved months in advance of shooting. All I'm saying is their attempts to "fix the third act" days or weeks before shooting, and a final film with a weak third act... tends to suggest those problems weren't resolved. 

 

Incidentally, I mostly loved the film. 

[Harmsway]

Yes very reasonable although I think you are slightly overstating how "business as usual" it is to be rewriting key confrontations between Bond and Blofeld days before shooting.

Days before the start of shooting, sure, but during a six-month shoot. That material was scheduled to be shot later in the game, so it's not as though they rewrote it the day before they filmed it.

Usually scripts *are* locked down earlier than this.

For smaller features, yeah. For tentpole blockbusters? Not necessarily. Blockbusters these days tend to have late-in-the-day rewrites.

But I do agree that the third act was clearly a known problem, and, yes, that accounts for the late rewrites on the third act even though the first two acts were mostly locked in October (maybe even earlier; the set pieces of the first two acts had been mostly outlined by May 2014).

[kneelbeforezod]

 

Yes very reasonable although I think you are slightly overstating how "business as usual" it is to be rewriting key confrontations between Bond and Blofeld days before shooting.

Days before the start of shooting, sure, but during a six-month shoot. That material was scheduled to be shot later in the game, so it's not as though they rewrote it the day before they filmed it.

Good point.

 

Can anyone remember what Blofeld's motives are in this film, outside of ruining Bond's life... they slightly fudge it with one line. I think they suggest he just wants governments to pay him for providing the global surveillance system? But in the script I'm sure they mentioned using it for extortion etc. I can't quite remember what happens in the film. 

[Guy Haines]

Yes very reasonable although I think you are slightly overstating how "business as usual" it is to be rewriting key confrontations between Bond and Blofeld days before shooting.

Days before the start of shooting, sure, but during a six-month shoot. That material was scheduled to be shot later in the game, so it's not as though they rewrote it the day before they filmed it.

Good point.
 
Can anyone remember what Blofeld's motives are in this film, outside of ruining Bond's life... they slightly fudge it with one line. I think they suggest he just wants governments to pay him for providing the global surveillance system? But in the script I'm sure they mentioned using it for extortion etc. I can't quite remember what happens in the film.

Isn't it Bond himself who works out what Blofeld is up to;

Spoiler

when, first, he accuses Blofeld of being nothing but a voyeur (In a manner which suggested Brosnan's Bond describing Trevelyan of being nothing but a bank robber in GE), He then says something about triggering terror events to push the nine governments into the Nine Eyes project which once activated will allow SPECTRE access to security services across the world? Something along those lines?

[kneelbeforezod]

 

 

Good point.
 
Can anyone remember what Blofeld's motives are in this film, outside of ruining Bond's life... they slightly fudge it with one line. I think they suggest he just wants governments to pay him for providing the global surveillance system? But in the script I'm sure they mentioned using it for extortion etc. I can't quite remember what happens in the film.

Isn't it Bond himself who works out what Blofeld is up to;

Spoiler

when, first, he accuses Blofeld of being nothing but a voyeur (In a manner which suggested Brosnan's Bond describing Trevelyan of being nothing but a bank robber in GE), He then says something about triggering terror events to push the nine governments into the Nine Eyes project which once activated will allow SPECTRE access to security services across the world? Something along those lines?

 

Yes it is something like that. I can't remember them suggesting what SPECTRE would do once Nine Eyes is up and running. It's almost as if once governments paid him for the system, Blofeld could retire! I'll have to listen more carefully on 2nd viewing. 

[Guy Haines]

Good point.

Can anyone remember what Blofeld's motives are in this film, outside of ruining Bond's life... they slightly fudge it with one line. I think they suggest he just wants governments to pay him for providing the global surveillance system? But in the script I'm sure they mentioned using it for extortion etc. I can't quite remember what happens in the film.

Isn't it Bond himself who works out what Blofeld is up to;

Spoiler

when, first, he accuses Blofeld of being nothing but a voyeur (In a manner which suggested Brosnan's Bond describing Trevelyan of being nothing but a bank robber in GE), He then says something about triggering terror events to push the nine governments into the Nine Eyes project which once activated will allow SPECTRE access to security services across the world? Something along those lines?

Yes it is something like that. I can't remember them suggesting what SPECTRE would do once Nine Eyes is up and running. It's almost as if once governments paid him for the system, Blofeld could retire! I'll have to listen more carefully on 2nd viewing.

A worse motive - not just our villain's - springs to my mind;

Spoiler

SPECTRE is about to do very well indeed out of the Nine Eyes programme - unlimited access to intelligence and surveillance across the world meaning the syndicate has a heads up on everything global intelligence forces might be doing to stop it. But - remember when Max Denbigh told M he had "made an alliance" (with SPECTRE, though the organisation is not named.) to force through Nine Eyes? We could have a mutually beneficial arrangement here - SPECTRE'S acts of terror are unimpeded because access to Nine Eyes would put it one step ahead - but those acts of terror would strengthen the hand of control freaks in government such as Denbigh in asking for more draconian powers over the general public whilst doing nothing to stop SPECTRE. Denbigh's contempt for the traditional way of running things is obvious; "Democracy, whatever the Hell that is." he sneers.

It's odd, but the very week SPECTRE opened in the UK the newspapers were reporting, amongst other things, a backtrack on surveillance law in this country, yet commentators were claiming that the new film was some kind of propaganda in favour of increased snooping. I'd suggest these commentators actually go see the film - it is anything but pro-Big Brother.

[Hansen]

Conclusion is that a 50-year long producing company is not able to lock a script before shooting.

Not really surprising though, but a little bit disappointing to see that even for Bond, they chose momentum over quality

[RMc2]

Conclusion is that a 50-year long producing company is not able to lock a script before shooting.

Not really surprising though, but a little bit disappointing to see that even for Bond, they chose momentum over quality

 

Sad times 

 

And they've done it before - TND, QoS...

 

I wonder if it's to do with how much of the budget (& pressure) comes from a partner? Considering how much they make from Bond, EON could strike out alone and do it in their own time.

Edited by RMc2, 02 November 2015 - 09:55 PM.

[Simon]

I think contractually, they are unable to.

 

But yes, financially, I am more than sure they could stump up themselves.  I am equally sure the sponsors could cover a production budget too.

[FlemingBond]

i personally don't sympathize  with the script problems. 

all they had to do was follow what Fleming wrote about SPECTRE and Blofeld and they were set.

[SecretAgentFan]

Conclusion is that a 50-year long producing company is not able to lock a script before shooting.

Not really surprising though, but a little bit disappointing to see that even for Bond, they chose momentum over quality

 

The reality of filmmaking is very different from what you are convinced it is.

[Hansen]

i personally don't sympathize with the script problems.
all they had to do was follow what Fleming wrote about SPECTRE and Blofeld and they were set.

Indeed. The best scripts are those which were the most faithful to Fleming's work.
What is the need of being original when you have such a great matter ?

[sharpshooter]

Films usually take the core elements and do their own spin on things. Which I'm okay with, especially in the Bond franchise which is now in its 24th official incarnation. 

[JohnnyWalker]

I don't think the process is something you can fully understand unless you're involved.

Edited by JohnnyWalker, 03 November 2015 - 12:45 PM.

[FlemingBond]

i get that. it's very difficult to make a great film every time out. i'm a fairly forgiving fan most of the time. i think it's remarkable all the elements that come together. imagine Bond if they hadn't had the james bond theme? or Connery to start it off? or so many other thing's. The fact remains the best picture in the last couple decade's was Casino Royale and once again it was an actual Fleming story.

[RMc2]

The fact remains the best picture in the last couple decade's was Casino Royale and once again it was an actual Fleming story.

 

Hear hear!

[Guy Haines]

CR had the benefit of being the first to showcase the new, harder edged rebooted approach. And it had Daniel Craig as spearhead for this approach. It looked different in some ways from what had preceded it, and looked fresh. Certainly, my first impression on viewing was "wow!"

The fact that it was probably the last Bond film to be made based mostly on a complete Ian Fleming novel, rather than bits taken here and there from others certainly helped as well.

[Mr_Wint]

RT score is now 65%, same as QOS.

[plankattack]

 

The fact remains the best picture in the last couple decade's was Casino Royale and once again it was an actual Fleming story.

 

Hear hear!

 

 I'd also offer one more thing that really helped CR. It was aware of all the things that "made" a Bond-film, and ditched most of them. Nearly every other Bond film from TB onwards, looks for moments to remind you that it is part of the series, all those "tropes."

 

CR consciously looked to avoid that, and ultimately that allowed the source material, script and story, to propel it forward. IMHO, the need to assure the audience that a film is a Bond-film, is too often the reason that, well, that CR leads most of them in most fans/non-fans "lists."

 

(I'm exempting DAD from this - it's whole existence is as a Bond film reminding you of Bond films.......    )

[SecretAgentFan]

But...

 

There is only a limited amount of Fleming novels, and most of the material has been adapted already.

 

And, really, CASINO ROYALE - despite using a lot of the Fleming novel, actually works because it departs from the novel and expands and adds original material.  

 

Filming the novels faithfully would have ended the Bond films very, very quickly.

RT score is now 65%, same as QOS.

 

Which does not mean anything.  Those sites only reduce a review to thumbs up or down (or in that case red or green), when so often a really sensible review points out the good and the bad things without resorting to the teenage idocy of "great" or "sucks".

[FlemingBond]

yes that is the funny thing i almost added. about half of Casino Royale wasn't even in the novel. And the dumb thing was i read critics who said it was too long and that it should have ended after the card game. They didn't get it that the story was all about the end of the story with Vesper committing suicide.

[Hansen]

To me CR is the perfect example of a great update of a great story remaining faithful to the original material.
Lots of Fleming's work has not been adapted (at least more or less faithfully) : YOLT, DAF, LALD, TMWGG, TSWLM, MR...
Those are great material mostly unused

[Mr_Wint]

I don't really see how CR was faithful to the original material. It only used a few bits from the last half, and that was the weakest part of the novel. The book is good, but also extremely difficult to translate to the screen. The good parts (plot centered around a card game and the torture scene) did make it into the movie. Everything else was heavily altered.

But for Spectre, I agree that it was a huge mistake to not use more of the original Fleming material. They had all sorts of crazy ideas for Blofeld, and they even filmed one of them. The African warlord chap was described by one excecutive as "the South American General from QOS". So that gives you an idea of how well developed that character was. It smells like change for the sake of change. A decision early on that this film should have Fleming's Blofeld character as the main antagonist would have given the project some focus.

[Harmsway]

I think it's very clear that nobody involved in the film wanted a traditional, classic Blofeld. Everyone agreed that some kind of new angle was required. And, honestly, given the way reviews are taking Spectre to task for being too traditional, they were probably right.

They're going to have a hell of a time figuring out where to go next. There's not a lot of clear consensus on Spectre.

[seawolfnyy]

I think it's very clear that nobody involved in the film wanted a traditional, classic Blofeld. Everyone agreed that some kind of new angle was required. And, honestly, given the way reviews are taking Spectre to task for being too traditional, they were probably right.

They're going to have a hell of a time figuring out where to go next. There's not a lot of clear consensus on Spectre.

Yea, but I don't think you can get a clear perspective on a film that has only been out for a week. Recall that some of the most loved films of all-time were not initially well received. If you look at the Star Wars films solely by their original review scores, The Empire Strikes Back would be the worst received film, while Revenge of the Sith would be seen as the best. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was originally poorly received, but is now considered one of the series' best films. While I don't think Quantum of Solace will ever reach those heights (unfortunately), it's entirely possible that Spectre could be better received in the years to come. Currently, we're seeing more of the American critics dislike the film than the British ones and a number of them are whining about the film being a thinly veiled attack on U.S. policies since 9/11 (namely the USA PATRIOT ACT). That said, I still haven't seen the film, so I can't personally pass judgement. 4 more days....

[Hansen]

Yes. Skyfall was very well received whereas it is the worst film of series ;-)
True we have to wait.
As we say here : 'c'est à la fin de la foire qu'on compte les bouses'.
And remember that critics, fans and box office are very different worlds

[kneelbeforezod]

Some of the hyperbole in the negative US reviews today is pretty ridiculous. Suddenly a flawed film is completely intolerable, even though they must be aware the entire series is made up of such films. But yes, whatever will Eon do next?! Part of me would love a "grand finale" with Waltz, Seydoux and Craig... but I don't really trust this team to make it as good as it should be. 

I think it's very clear that nobody involved in the film wanted a traditional, classic Blofeld. Everyone agreed that some kind of new angle was required. And, honestly, given the way reviews are taking Spectre to task for being too traditional, they were probably right.

They're going to have a hell of a time figuring out where to go next. There's not a lot of clear consensus on Spectre.

Have you seen Spectre yet? I have to say, for me personally, it was a somewhat strange experience going into the film having read a version of the script, and knowing so much. 

[Harmsway]

But yes, whatever will Eon do next?! Part of me would love a "grand finale" with Waltz, Seydoux and Craig... but I don't really trust this team to make it as good as it should be.

The absence of Logan on the next film might help matters.

Have you seen Spectre yet?

Soon!

[Guy Haines]

But yes, whatever will Eon do next?! Part of me would love a "grand finale" with Waltz, Seydoux and Craig... but I don't really trust this team to make it as good as it should be.

The absence of Logan on the next film might help matters.

Have you seen Spectre yet?

Soon!

Just out of idle, or even morbid curiosity I've read two US reviews of SPECTRE, online, which were so contradictory - and so at odds with my first and second impressions - that I had to wonder if the reviewers had watched the same film I had. (And in fairness there have been one or two UK reviews like that.)

My guess is that having built SF up they wanted to shoot SP down.

[Vauxhall]

Not really surprised by the less positive American reviews, but am fairly shocked by how extreme some of them are. The idea SPECTRE is no better than QUANTUM OF SOLACE is pretty laughable.