491 replies to this topic

[Mr Malcolm]

Well, I'm excited! I'm not crazy about the reboot idea (if it was anyone other than Judi Dench playing M, much as I like her, I'd be happier), but I'll live with it, and this sounds bloody cool!

Although I wish I'd managed to hold myself back from reading it, and been ready for a (hopefully) nice surprise come November.

[Rolex]

another thought , when they finally have a press conference this scrpt we be raised. I wonder how they will respnd to this leak ?

[Loomis]

Well what do we have here Half a screenplay ? Without casting aspersions on the report all this seem to me at present is somebody has made up a story using known character names up to what we already know about Bond meeting Vesper on the Train then a description of the toture scene.
Is natural assumption at present that last half of the movie is going to follow the book ?

Yes, I hope this isn't a hoax (well, partial hoax). I'm surprised we didn't hear about Pakistan and Miami as locations before, and I wonder whether they'd have actually scripted the opening credits sequence at this point. On balance, though, I'd say it seems legit (although I've absolutely nothing with which to back that up).

I think Campbell said a while back that the last third of the film would be pretty much the same as the last third of the book.

[weejay]

no,no,no,no no reeboooot!!!! >

[Shrublands]

Oh, and Moriarty at AICN hates the screenplay!

Well, Moriarty at AICN has not read the script himself, he is basing what he has to say on what he has read at Latino Review and his longstanding dislike for all things associated with Paul Haggis.

[trumanlodge89]

looks great!

[Skudor]

Well what do we have here Half a screenplay ? Without casting aspersions on the report all this seem to me at present is somebody has made up a story using known character names up to what we already know about Bond meeting Vesper on the Train then a description of the toture scene.
Is natural assumption at present that last half of the movie is going to follow the book ?

Yes, I hope this isn't a hoax (well, partial hoax). I'm surprised we didn't hear about Pakistan and Miami as locations before, and I wonder whether they'd have actually scripted the opening credits sequence at this point. On balance, though, I'd say it seems legit (although I've absolutely nothing with which to back that up).

I think Campbell said a while back that the last third of the film would be pretty much the same as the last third of the book.

I was just about to ask whether people have any idea of how legit (or not)this source is?

[Loomis]

For some reason, I absolutely love the idea of Bond killing a British traitor in the gents at a Pakistani cricket ground. Seems somehow symbolic of the decline of Empire, Britain as a faded power still trying to punch above its weight, Bond as a hero born slightly out of time, or somefink or nuffink. This screenplay really does sound as cool as a cucumber.

[Shrublands]

For some reason, I absolutely love the idea of Bond killing a British traitor in the gents at a Pakistani cricket ground. Seems somehow symbolic of the decline of Empire, Britain as a faded power still trying to punch above its weight, Bond as a hero born slightly out of time, or somefink or nuffink. This screenplay really does sound as cool as a cucumber.

Do you think there will be a play on the expression

[Santa]

I didn't want to read it either but I knew there was no point even pretending I wouldn't read it. We're all going to read it of course - and it sounds really cool. Getting a bit overexcited now given that we have to wait until November for the damn thing . I want it now!

[Mister Asterix]

W
O
W

[mra]Kudos to Latino Review. Don

[marktmurphy]

For some reason, I absolutely love the idea of Bond killing a British traitor in the gents at a Pakistani cricket ground. Seems somehow symbolic of the decline of Empire, Britain as a faded power still trying to punch above its weight, Bond as a hero born slightly out of time, or somefink or nuffink. This screenplay really does sound as cool as a cucumber.

As long as he doesn't do it with a cricket bat, Untouchables-style.

[Loomis]

Oh, and Moriarty at AICN hates the screenplay!

Well, Moriarty at AICN has not read the script himself, he is basing what he has to say on what he has read at Latino Review and his longstanding dislike for all things associated with Paul Haggis.

Here's what Moriarty has to say:

No offense to El Mayimbe or the good guys over at Latino Review, but that script review sounds like the script itself was written by someone who has little or no understanding of the enduring appeal of the Ian Fleming novels, and no respect for CASINO ROYALE, which is arguably the best of Fleming

[Santa]

I think that's what Haggis is there for. And I trust him, mostly.

[Loomis]

The only thing that disappoints me is that there's no actual mention of the codename theory. *Ducks*

[Skudor]

The only thing that disappoints me is that there's no actual mention of the codename theory. *Ducks*

Clearly Latinoreview only saw a heavily sensored, deliberately leaked script.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]It really seems as if the producers looked at Bourne, and rather than seeing something to aspire to or to emulate, they saw something to leapfrog over. With the assumption that this is based on a real script, and I

[Skudor]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='515935' date='10 February 2006 - 15:18']
[mra]It really seems as if the producers looked at Bourne, and rather than seeing something to aspire to or to emulate, they saw something to leapfrog over. With the assumption that this is based on a real script, and I

[Shrublands]

[quote name='Loomis' post='515926' date='10 February 2006 - 15:10']
[quote name='Shrublands' post='515901' date='10 February 2006 - 14:37']
[quote name='Gabriel' post='515887' date='10 February 2006 - 14:22']
Oh, and Moriarty at AICN hates the screenplay!
[/quote]

Well, Moriarty at AICN has not read the script himself, he is basing what he has to say on what he has read at Latino Review and his longstanding dislike for all things associated with Paul Haggis.

[/quote]

Here's what Moriarty has to say:

No offense to El Mayimbe or the good guys over at Latino Review, but that script review sounds like the script itself was written by someone who has little or no understanding of the enduring appeal of the Ian Fleming novels, and no respect for CASINO ROYALE, which is arguably the best of Fleming

[Loomis]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='515935' date='10 February 2006 - 15:18']
[mra]It really seems as if the producers looked at Bourne, and rather than seeing something to aspire to or to emulate, they saw something to leapfrog over. With the assumption that this is based on a real script, and I

[Jim]

Even if this is complete and utter lies and fibbery the size of Sunday, I like it.

[Lazenby880]

Still, I'm all for it. Sounds really brutal, dark and non-PC, and perfect Craig material. There even seems to be a bit of "the element of the bizarre". A fight to the death between a cobra and a mongoose - something Fleming might have chucked in. If Craig - as spynovelfan once memorably put it - makes Dalton look like Hugh Grant, this script has the potential to make LICENCE TO KILL look like OCTOPUSSY.

I really hope Campbell is up to this. I'm sure he is, but that's pretty much my only "fear" at this point. This could well be the Bond flick of our wildest dreams.

Entirely agree. On reading the review I could not quite believe that Eon have actually pushed the button to such an extent. And as you correctly say it does read as perfect material for Daniel Craig, moody, gritty but with the Bondian 'element of the bizarre'. Sounds absolutely brilliant. Maybe a pack of lies and conjecture, but brilliant nonetheless.

My appetite has been duly whetted.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Oh and I can

[Auric64]

I think that's what Haggis is there for. And I trust him, mostly.

The problem here is not that Wade/Purvis/Haggis are good scriptwriters or not, but that certain guidelines have to be right and adhered to. In the Fleming novels, (and the producers keep harking back to wanting to use CR the Fleming novel) Bond was a Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve. He would not have dealings with the SAS, as they are Army.

If, however, he had trained at some point, with the SAS, he can`t be a Commander. His equivalent rank in the Army, (if he is training with the SAS) would be Major. It would have been much better for Bond to have trained with the SBS (Special Boat Squadron) as that is the Navy`s equivalent of the Army`s SAS, but the scriptwriters, (and Broccoli and Wilson) are using the SAS because the whole world has heard of them, and know what they do, and it`s convenient for them to use this, because if he is a Naval Commander seconded to the SAS, then having to explain that without making it convoluted to the audience is going to be hard.

All I can think is that the SAS is being mentioned because maybe there are scenes in the film that require SAS training and tactics for Bond to get himelf out of a jam. Yet Bond has been getting himself out of jams with ingenuity for years, without having to mention that he`s been in the SAS. Why mention it now? As I said earlier, the writers/producers have got themselves tied up in knots unnecessarily.

This could be a very sorry mess all round. I hope it isn`t, but I`m not pinning my hopes too high.

Regards
Andy
Auric64

[James Boldman]

I've been a recent knocker of Purvis & Wade. I thought they did a good job on TWINE, and okay they got it wrong with DAD...but boy does it seemingly look like they've come up with the goods this time! They've finally earnt their stripes...and yea I know we have to wait and see yet...

One thing I did notice (seemingly so did others) is the fact that it seems "M"s aide is a fellow by the name of Villiers. Is this a reference to James Villiers who played Bill Tanner in FYEO? Or are we looking into that a bit too much? And furthermore, does anyone know...was Michael Kitchen unavailable for this film too? If not, why is Tanner not in it? Having said that I think we're pretty fortunate to have what looks like the best Bond flick in years! They've even retained the carpet beater scene from the novel, which I'm sure everyone agrees is fantastic! I really don't have a qualm with what I've read so far. I'm just looking forward to seeing it ten times in the cinemas.

Edited by James Boldman, 10 February 2006 - 04:01 PM.

[Judo chop]

I cannot fight it any longer. I'm going in.

[SecretAgentFan]

Man, this IS geekish, Auric 64. If they re-invent Bond coming from SAS instead of Navy - does this really ruin the film for you? Get a life!

And Moriarty and Ain

[Mister Asterix]

Man, this IS geekish, Auric 64. If they re-invent Bond coming from SAS instead of Navy - does this really ruin the film for you? Get a life!

[mra]Okay, enough of the

[Judo chop]

I never thought I'd be reading the script before I saw the first promo poster.

[Gabe Vieira]

Oh, and Moriarty at AICN hates the screenplay!

Well, that's Moriarty. Everyone over at AICN is a massive prick, and they often get theor information wrong. I advise people to stay away from AICN.

As for the script, one word: JACKPOT!!!.

Loved it. Great. [Censored]ing awesome. One of the best Bond films yet - on paper. I'm still a tiny bit worried about the final product, but the script preaty much sold it for me.