491 replies to this topic

[Shrublands]

But the script review expresses that I'm right.

Well, the script reviewer says that he thinks a script is easier to read when there is a gap every 4 lines or so when describing action sequences.

[Loomis]

Besides, it doesn't seem to me like they're going overboard. I mean, we'll see, but I don't get that vibe yet.

Wow, Harmsway, I'd love to read your definition of going overboard.

It looks to me as though they're not only going overboard, but also swimming to the bottom of the ocean and then boring through the earth's core and out onto the other side of the world!

Oh, well, hopefully it'll still be a good film. Rest in peace, Mr Bond.

[Hawkeye]

As for the 1 minute to 1 page rule, i've found myself when writing scripts that it varies considerably and functions only as a loose guide and is dependent on which industry standard layout you use, and they do vary from Production company to production company and they change for different genres. I've found a read through can reveal some pages at 30 seconds other at 90, depending on what you allocate for scene setting. If you're writing a very intricately detailed script where background detail has to be scripted because its essential to subtle meanings in the story (imagine an episode of The Prisoner for example) then a page of description may translate to nothing in terms of screen time.
Off topic slightly i know but someone did raise the minute/page rule.

[Harmsway]

But the script review expresses that I'm right.

Well, the script reviewer says that he thinks a script is easier to read when there is a gap every 4 lines or so when describing action sequences.

That's standard practice.

OK, but how is Leiter`s entrance in CR going to be handled? Is he going to walk in with a limp, (after what happened to him in LTK?) or will he have no limp, with no reference to LTK?

If they do the former, then CR can`t be a reboot with Bond on his first mission. If they do the latter, then that is a major plot point from a previous film they are simply throwing out and saying, "Well, don`t worry about LTK. What happened in it and what happened to the characters doesn`t matter anymore. This is the new Bond."

The latter is what it's all about. This is about the "new Bond".

Sorry, but as I`ve said before, there is too much of Bond`s history in the films to just forget about any of it just like that.

What history? There's only little winks and nods that are sparingly dotted throughout a few of the films, and only us Bond fans pick it up. The "history" of Bond has not affected individual films in the slightest, so I see no reason for it to hold back CASINO ROYALE now.

[stamper]

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised about that, it's pretty standart to make the pages look lean and mean, not cumbersome. It makes me wonder if the script is a genuine draft, or just a rough treatment with dialogue trown together at an early stage. (a scriptment). If so, I say the movie will end up being totally different. Imagine the difference between Goldeneye first draft and the movie... you get my point.

[Seannery]

I see your point but firstly I dislike this whole need to explain and psychoanalyze Bond--I find it dreary.

Well that comes into conflict with the Fleming Bond, which many of us no and love. Bond got quite a bit of psychoanalysis in the Fleming novels, especially in the more defining ones like CASINO ROYALE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

Besides, it doesn't seem to me like they're going overboard. I mean, we'll see, but I don't get that vibe yet.

Hopefully they won't go overboard. Our main difference it seems is I find the cinematic series a different entitiy than the novels with their own appeal and strengths. CINEMATIC BOND ,who the general public loves, just "is"--suave, deadly, cool--and not driven by pain and his psychology. The film series is escapism that can veer from lighter to more serious but without turning into psychology and little character arcs. I'm content to leave that to the novels.

[Harmsway]

Besides, it doesn't seem to me like they're going overboard. I mean, we'll see, but I don't get that vibe yet.

Wow, Harmsway, I'd love to read your definition of going overboard.

Umm, taking away Bond's casino habits, making Bond a homosexual, and any other sort of stuff like that.

As far as I can tell, Craig's Bond is James Bond. Just an early stage version of the character we know with a lot of rough edges. There's still Bondian stuff he does (as the aforementioned beat the bad guy at cards, take his car, and then his girl).

[Bond_Bishop]

This sounds excellent. I really look forward to the movie now. I have really hated the reboot idea but it could work out well. I just hope that they don't take away Bond's Commander rank.

[Harmsway]

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised about that, it's pretty standart to make the pages look lean and mean, not cumbersome. It makes me wonder if the script is a genuine draft, or just a rough treatment with dialogue trown together at an early stage. (a scriptment). If so, I say the movie will end up being totally different. Imagine the difference between Goldeneye first draft and the movie... you get my point.

It's not a scriptment. They've been past the scriptment stage ever since P&W turned in a draft. Besides, scriptments aren't usually this long. And the reviewer isn't stupid - he'd know the difference between a screenplay and a scriptment.

[Shrublands]

But the script review expresses that I'm right.

Well, the script reviewer says that he thinks a script is easier to read when there is a gap every 4 lines or so when describing action sequences.

That's standard practice.

Well yes, and he says that some times he goes on to write paragraphs of 10 to 18 lines during the 3 action sequences in the first 39 pages.

So, there would be a few extra lines here and there, its not going to effect things that much.

Anyway, I haven

Edited by Shrublands, 10 February 2006 - 06:56 PM.

[Seannery]

Besides, it doesn't seem to me like they're going overboard. I mean, we'll see, but I don't get that vibe yet.

Wow, Harmsway, I'd love to read your definition of going overboard.

It looks to me as though they're not only going overboard, but also swimming to the bottom of the ocean and then boring through the earth's core and out onto the other side of the world!

Oh, well, hopefully it'll still be a good film. Rest in peace, Mr Bond.

Loomis if the new direction does not work--we'll have resurrected "classic" Bond and then no need for RIP.

[Lounge Lizard]

Hm. Didn't want to read it at first, couldn't resist.

What can we read into this?

Bond as a stone-cold killer, indulging himself in fleeting affairs with married women. A cocky S.O.B. who's about to be sucker-punched. A Bond cleverly re-invented for the War on Terror, yet at the same time true to Fleming: the cold state assassin. 'Not the Bond we know yet'; which probably means he will be by the time Bond 22 is released. I find Bond's first slip-up fascinating: getting caught on a security camera and being televized by CNN. Does Bond run a danger of becoming too political a character with this movie? After all, when we see the CNN reports of Bond's actions in the film, we will respond to Bond for the first time as we would to a state assassin in the real world. What goes through our heads when we see CNN reports like that? When not a total fantasy figure, paradoxically, Bond will become harder to care for; which means Craig has a pretty hard job, harder than it already is. All of this is interesting and ripe for discussion; EON certainly seems to have raised the bar on this one, in terms of the play with audience involvement.

The pre-00 'Bond Begins' business is taken care of in the title sequence and before- which is good enough for me. Not necessary to see more of it.

A highly complicated story, a la TLD- but why shouldn't it be? We live in very complicated times... If CR has the relentless 'sweep' of a classic Bond movie, I can revel in the complexity of its plot without feeling the need to understand all of its little details (an attitude I probably don't share with a lot of other CBn members, but that's just me).

A really globetrotting affair- From Lahore, Pakistan, to London, a scene in Gulu, Uganda, then Madagascar, the Bahamas, Miami, Montenegro (and possibly also Croatia, according to earlier reports). Exciting locations, humming with tension.

A villain called 'Dimitrios' (Ambler, anyone?). Background of the villains sounds terrific- corrupt post-911 'money men' with loyalty to none. Just the kind of people Bond should take on. Don't know if I understood this correctly, but does Bond have to 'smoke out' Le Chiffre through the poker game, so that M can give him shelter and question him about his financial dealings? That would be a brilliant script innovation, almost on par with the 'not-robbing-the-gold-but-contaminating-it' twist of the Goldfinger screenplay, even if the poker set-up itself is still rather fantastic. I don't mind.

M seems hard as nails, has nostalgia for the clarity of the Cold War- may be played by the same actress, but seems a different character, a tough survivor type. Good.

M has an assistant called 'Villiers'; I don't think it's reading too much into it, when we perceive that as an hommage to the late James Villiers, the man who played Tanner.

The torture scene is in, 'my dear boy'. Yahoo.

Yes, I love this stuff. It sounds great.

Still a few plot mechanics I don't really 'get' (especially concerning Dimitrios- what does he do?), and breaking into M's house seems a bit much indeed, but I'm convinced this will work itself out, since this is basically just a rough sketch of the First Act. The fact that it's just a rough sketch could also be a reason for me to remain neutral, but I'm just too bloody excited about it all. No Batman Begins analogies at all, just solid spy material. Call it a Jason Bourne rip-off all you like, just because it has embassy fights and war rooms and lean action sequences. It's still Bond, only a Bond more finely tuned to the chaos in today's world- the world that also inspired the Bourne writers when they had to update Bourne from Ludlum.

If this is really what we're going to get, and knowing it's Craig who's getting to do all this, I can only say: good job, EON.

Edited by Lounge Lizard, 10 February 2006 - 07:02 PM.

[Stratus]

My reaction is more mixed. I want a second or third opinion on it. The whole tracer implant thing was just unnecessary. Something less biological would have suffice.

If Bond is supposedly ex-SAS he sure doesn't sound like it, these people are 10 times more discipline and professional, its interesting to also note that these chaps do a lot of intelligence work themselves. A character/personality like Bond as written in that review would not have passed initial screening to begin with (as in the organization prior to MI6). Not to mention if they are orienting this film with Terrorism with a lot of action involved (to make it "relevant"), MI6 might not be the appropriate organization. Rather the one Bond was in, ironic isn't it? If this was a cold war film it would make more sense if it was MI6.

http://en.wikipedia....ial_Air_Service

Function
Current SAS roles include:
* Gathering intelligence behind enemy lines.
* Destroying targets far behind enemy lines.
* Protecting senior British dignitaries.
* Executing CRW operations to assist police units such as SO19.
* Operating without official British Government involvement.
* Training special forces of other nationalities.
* Performing counter-terrorism operations at home and abroad

Edited by Stratus, 10 February 2006 - 07:09 PM.

[Robinson]

I am still not so sure about the endproduct.

Same here, chimera01.

I think it would have been better just to have set the book of CR in contemporary times, (as they have done) and if they wanted to show Bond getting his 00 status, show that in flashback, as Bond is talking to Vesper, (or whoever), and by doing it this way, it doesn`t make it integral to the plot. It would, however, add to the mythology of Bond and be a welcome addition of characterisation to the story. The plot and the 40 year history wouldn`t then be compromised.

Okay, the plot itself sounds fine, but I`m still not happy with this reboot idea. Why do we have to have Bond as this cocky, know-all type agent, when he`s been that for the past 40 years! Bond has made mistakes in previous Bond films, that`s the character development we are able to get, in between the whizz bang action sequences. It would have been better had the 00 killings been told in flashback, thus keeping the film and its plot contemporarly to what is going on today.

If certain Bond fans, (like myself) are going to find it hard to accept seeing Bond getting his 00 status as part of the plot, then how will the average movie goer, (used to seeing Bond as a double 0 agent as he has been over 40 years) going to accept it?

When I read the above, I immediately thought of "Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade." We see Indy, how he gets the whip, the scar, the hat etc.

I'm intrigued by what I read on Latino Review and I'm eager to see what the finished product looks like in November.

[triviachamp]

How far can they screw with the actual character of James Bond and it still be James Bond?

Quite a lot in fact. Moonraker, LALD, LTK. Making Bond a family friendly punster, a cool 80s guy and a 90s PC action hero, etc.

Also the RNVR does not exist anymore so Bond can not be a part of it.

A character/personality like Bond as written in that review would not have passed initial screening to begin with

You mean like using his real name and ignoring the boss' calls?

MI6 might not be the appropriate organization

So? Just like many other films!

Edited by triviachamp, 10 February 2006 - 07:34 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

M has an assistant called 'Villiers'; I don't think it's reading too much into it, when we perceive that as an hommage to the late James Villiers, the man who played Tanner.

[mra]Maybe but maybe more likely a tribute to Fleming

[Jack Bauer]

Glad I read it. It's spoilerific, but not to the level of detail where you're kicking yourself in the behind for reading it. It sounds very well done and exciting. Normally you think, card games, boring...blah blah...but this one sounds exciting and fresh.

I was hasty about the whole "reboot" thing, thinking it'd be something like updating the older films, but now I'm confident that the change isn't that drastic. It's more or less a gripping transition between Brosnan and Craig. I like it, although I still don't know the specifics of this "reboot."

With that said, I simply cannot wait for this movie.

[Andrew]

Just read it twice. I really enjoy it, it's such a breathe of fresh air. I'm really glad they are bringing elements of terrorism and the modern world into it. I love that we're finally seeing the assassin side of Bond once again, that was one of my biggest wishes for the film. This could be the best OO7 film since The Living Daylights if it's done correctly and right now it looks like it will be.

I hope that more details come out on the second half and climax though, I just need confirmation that Vespers suicide is included.

I really hope they aren't ditching the gun barrel though...

Edited by Andrew, 10 February 2006 - 07:55 PM.

[Loomis]

Besides, it doesn't seem to me like they're going overboard. I mean, we'll see, but I don't get that vibe yet.

Wow, Harmsway, I'd love to read your definition of going overboard.

Umm, taking away Bond's casino habits, making Bond a homosexual, and any other sort of stuff like that.

As far as I can tell, Craig's Bond is James Bond. Just an early stage version of the character we know with a lot of rough edges. There's still Bondian stuff he does (as the aforementioned beat the bad guy at cards, take his car, and then his girl).

I suppose it's really no more radical than some of Gardner's reinventions. This is kind of how I'm thinking of it at the moment: Eon "doing a Gardner". Ironically, it'll be the non-fan mass moviegoing public complaining most loudly about the changes, while us CBners will be geeking out over character names like Villiers (good catch, Mister Asterix).

[TaoMike]

I'm still not sure how I feel about what I've read. Excited? Slightly. Apprehensive? Definitely. Cautiously optimistic? Yeah, I guess that's it.

If nothing else, I have to give Michael and Barbara credit for taking a risk (assuming this script actually makes it to the screen intact).

There does seem to be a hell of a lot that happens before Bond even lays eyes on Vesper, though. Can their entire relationship be shoehorned into the second half of the movie (and still be credible)?

And if the First Act is indicative of the entire movie, I'm a little worried about the convoluted nature of the plot. And the overabundance of secondary characters. In the First Act alone, we meet LeChiffre, Mr. White, the African "freedom fighter", LeChiffre's "beautiful" bodyguard, LeChiffre's other (presumably less beautiful) bodyguard Kratt, Demetrios, Solange, Bomber, Carter, Villiers...
and we haven't even made it to Casino Royale yet! And then come Vesper, Mathis, Leiter...

[RITZ]

Quite positive about the script, I think this certainly marks a new direction. We see James Bond in amateur mode, a very arrogant Bond, which I like. Craig can pull this off very well indeed, based on what I've seen in Layer Cake.

We see Bond and Carter in Madagascar, and a fight that leads to an Embassy - are these the spy shots of Craig we saw a few days ago? Must be.

Bond being "put in place" by Vesper - that I will love to see

I now want pictures, pictures, pictures!

[JimmyBond]

For the first time since the reboot idea was proposed, I'm actually excited. This feels like it has the makings of a very dark and edgy Bond film indeed, like it or not, the Brosnan era is over. Brosnan's gone, and with it is the over the top tone that permeated throughout his era.

I look at this like the end of the Moore era and the beginning of the Dalton one (let's just hope Craig does more than two movies ).

[Righty007]

WOW!

[stamper]

I just would like to say : last time a sixties spy series got gritty and back to it's roots, John Steed of The Avengers traded Emma Peel and his Bentley 1929 for a British Leyland truck and Mike Gambit, in the NEW AVENGERS. I don't think it was an improvement...
Hopefully, this modern gritty Bond will retain the style.

[tdalton]

I skimmed through the article so that I wouldn't have too many things ruined for me. The attitude of the script sounds great, and it seems like, from the little bit that I read, the arrogance is going to return to Bond. One question, though, for those who read the whole thing: Does the article detail the entire script (because I got the impression at the beginning of the article that it might not) and if it does, is the final line included?

[Harmsway]

I just would like to say : last time a sixties spy series got gritty and back to it's roots, John Steed of The Avengers traded Emma Peel and his Bentley 1929 for a British Leyland truck and Mike Gambit, in the NEW AVENGERS. I don't think it was an improvement...
Hopefully, this modern gritty Bond will retain the style.

Well Bond's retaining the Aston Martin and apparently keeping up the high-class lifestyle with all of that gambling, so I don't think we're straying too far in the gritty direction.

[JimmyBond]

I only read a bit of the beginning of the article and skimmed the rest. But I believe it only covers the first act (first 40 or so pages).

[zencat]

Okay, I broke down and read it.

I like the idea of a major action sequence on the tarmac of the Miami airport, but up to that, I don't know...it feels overwrought. Too much stuff. Too much info coming via computers and newspaper headlines (a pet peeve of mine). It just feels a little too front-loaded. I'm guessing a big cut will be made here somewhere. Still, hard to really judge without reading the script myself. Maybe it will all play great. Happy to hear the LR reviewer likes it so much.

The character of Bond is

[tdalton]

I only read a bit of the beginning of the article and skimmed the rest. But I believe it only covers the first act (first 40 or so pages).

Thanks. That's what I thought, but wasn't entirely sure since I didn't read the entire thing.

But, the little bit of it I did read was excellent, and I don't think that I mind the reboot all that much anymore (although the stamping of the "00" number on his ID or whatever during the title sequence sounds a bit cheesy).

[Mister Asterix]

I just would like to say : last time a sixties spy series got gritty and back to it's roots, John Steed of The Avengers traded Emma Peel and his Bentley 1929 for a British Leyland truck and Mike Gambit, in the NEW AVENGERS. I don't think it was an improvement...
Hopefully, this modern gritty Bond will retain the style.

[mra]How was that movie