491 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

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?

It covers until about he meets Vesper (where the Stax report on IGN sort of picks up), and confirms the carpet beater, but nothing else. I'm curious about the final line, and whether it ends the film. Leaving on that note is like a sock to the stomach, as someone here on CBn said, so I wonder how the end will be handled. I imagine there might be a bit more of an end coda with a brooding Bond driving off in his Aston or something, just so it doesn't end so bleakly. It'd be a darker ending than even OHMSS.

But then again, the rest of the script is gutsy enough that they just might go for it.

[tdalton]

But then again, the rest of the script is gutsy enough that they just might go for it.

That's kind of the impression that I got from the little bit I read and then from the comments in this thread. Really, though, it wouldn't make much sense not to include it if the script is as daring as it sounds. I mean, if people don't like the film or are put off by the attitude or grittiness of it, it's not going to simply be because of the final line of the novel, so why not include it to make the fans happy when it's very much in line with the attitude of the rest of the script.

[marktmurphy]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516161' date='10 February 2006 - 21:00']
[quote name='stamper' post='516151' date='10 February 2006 - 14:53']
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.
[/quote]

[mra]How was that movie

[stamper]

Yes, actually, the movie was in some ways better than the New Avengers, despite being cut to ribbons, it was at least respectful of the original sixties material, while still being set up in modern times.

That should be I think the only way to go for Bond (not by having the movie cut until it doesn't make sense, thought). Not gritty, but stylish, in a modern sixties kind of way.

[Harmsway]

But then again, the rest of the script is gutsy enough that they just might go for it.

That's kind of the impression that I got from the little bit I read and then from the comments in this thread. Really, though, it wouldn't make much sense not to include it if the script is as daring as it sounds. I mean, if people don't like the film or are put off by the attitude or grittiness of it, it's not going to simply be because of the final line of the novel, so why not include it to make the fans happy when it's very much in line with the attitude of the rest of the script.

True... I think it's probably in there, but my question is whether or not that's really where the movie ends. I think it's possible there's a sort of final end coda, even if its just a shot of Bond driving off into the distance. A bit to let the movie end on a bit more of a satisfying note.

I'm just speculating of course. I honestly don't know.

[Seannery]

[quote name='zencat' post='516159' date='10 February 2006 - 21:59']
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

[marktmurphy]

[quote name='zencat' post='516159' date='10 February 2006 - 20:59']
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]

But then again, the rest of the script is gutsy enough that they just might go for it.

That's kind of the impression that I got from the little bit I read and then from the comments in this thread. Really, though, it wouldn't make much sense not to include it if the script is as daring as it sounds. I mean, if people don't like the film or are put off by the attitude or grittiness of it, it's not going to simply be because of the final line of the novel, so why not include it to make the fans happy when it's very much in line with the attitude of the rest of the script.

True... I think it's probably in there, but my question is whether or not that's really where the movie ends. I think it's possible there's a sort of final end coda, even if its just a shot of Bond driving off into the distance. A bit to let the movie end on a bit more of a satisfying note.

I'm just speculating of course. I honestly don't know.

I wouldn't be too terribly disappointed if the final line of the novel was used at the end of the film, but not as the absolute last thing that we see/hear. As long as it's used in the correct context and is towards the very end of the film, I'll be satisfied.

[Harmsway]

That should be I think the only way to go for Bond (not by having the movie cut until it doesn't make sense, thought). Not gritty, but stylish, in a modern sixties kind of way.

I have a feeling that CASINO ROYALE will both be glamorous and gritty. I don't think they're necessarily opposed to one another. In fact, for an example I'd say LAYER CAKE managed to be stylish and gritty as well.

I expect cinematographer Phil Meheux to bring back some of that "classic" vibe he instilled GOLDENEYE with, giving it a nice glamour feel for the casino scenes, but also letting the darker stuff be tough and hard-hitting.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

But then again, the rest of the script is gutsy enough that they just might go for it.

That's kind of the impression that I got from the little bit I read and then from the comments in this thread. Really, though, it wouldn't make much sense not to include it if the script is as daring as it sounds. I mean, if people don't like the film or are put off by the attitude or grittiness of it, it's not going to simply be because of the final line of the novel, so why not include it to make the fans happy when it's very much in line with the attitude of the rest of the script.

Well this script review confims what P&W said about the script in an interview that came out a while back. If that is the case then the "bitch is dead" line will be there.

[Mamadou]

I'm almost 100% behind this. What's holding me back is obviously the finished product. I definitely like the adult edge--some of the more recent films broach bad adolescent humor territory. My one nitpicky thing is the break-in at M's house; even my great ability to suspend my disbelief was overstretched. But it seems to be there only to get a scene in with M and Bond. Why her office won't suffice is a bit beyond me, though I can understand why the meeting's at her house if Bond's in the doghouse at HQ.

But that's a minor thing for me. So long as it's not dwelled upon, it won't ruin the movie for me.

My next question is: how graphic will the carpetbeater fandango be? I think they'll have a hit if they can get not only an audible reaction from the audience, but a physical--seeing people squirm in their seats, covering their eyes, getting into the fetal position, or a combination of those, is a good thing for a director.

I think I'll reserve tickets for this in November.

[DLibrasnow]

Too much info coming via computers and newspaper headlines (a pet peeve of mine).

Yes, that description in the overview of the script made me cringe.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

I think I'll reserve tickets for this in November.

That's the spirit!

[marktmurphy]

So is Bond out on his own after the embassy assassination and during his tracking down of Dimitrious until MI6 find him in Miami? Why's he still following the trail?

[Loomis]

My one nitpicky thing is the break-in at M's house; even my great ability to suspend my disbelief was overstretched.

Yeah. It's going to have to be done incredibly well, so that we not only believe that Bond has a bloody good reason to be breaking into M's house, but also that he can break into M's house (which one imagines would be pretty well-guarded). Might as well have him breaking into Buckingham Palace to confront the Queen in her bedroom, although someone did, of course, do that once (William Goldman uses the story to illustrate the importance of audiences "believing reality" in his "Adventures in the Screen Trade").

And what's this about "She threatens to kill him if he utters another syllable"? The idea that M (and Dench's M at that) would tackle the intruder, Bond, somehow gain the upper hand and threaten to kill him is obviously just too ludicrous for words. Presumably, she threatens to send fellow Double-Os to rub him out at a later date, or something like that.

But it still seems an utterly outrageous sequence.

Oh, and why would M's name be a secret? How could it be kept secret if Bond and co. knew her face?

[Harmsway]

Well firstly, this is the December draft, and no doubt things have changed from then to the current draft. I'll be interested to see what stays and what gets modified.

I was thinking about the M's break-in (which I gotta admit, is a little out-there, even if the script does sound outstanding), and it baffles me a little bit. With the information we have, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Bond gets on the news and then just shows up at M's house? And *how* does he break in anyway? Does he just sneak in through the door? Does he crash throught he window?

I wonder what Bond's rationale for such rash action is. We'll see, I guess, come November (if it's even still in the draft).

[Jack Spang]

I haven't read it yet. Only the second part where they give their opinion and don't reveal the spoilers. I don't really want to know what happens. Can I ask people though, is this filled with non stop action? This is my main worry. Is it about the first 5th of the film? What does this part mean?:

"A note to the Mr. Haggis:

Mr. Haggis, you're Oscar nominated, the man and all but breakup the action every 4 lines or so please. Easier on the eyes and the reader. Don't be lazy. This is a screenplay not a novel. Thanks buddy! Loved Crash!"

Surely the site who posted this will get in trouble won't they? Unless the script has changed quite alot since then. If so, then hopefully for the better. I am so worried that this will be just another action packed film. Plus, I hope the new Aston DBS doesn't ahve gadgets.

Edited by Jack Spang, 10 February 2006 - 09:34 PM.

[Harmsway]

I haven't read it yet. Only the second part where they give their opinion and don't reveal the spoilers. I don't really want to know what happens. Can I ask people though, is this filled with non stop action? This is my main worry. Is it about the first 5th of the film? What does this part mean?:

"A note to the Mr. Haggis:

Mr. Haggis, you're Oscar nominated, the man and all but breakup the action every 4 lines or so please. Easier on the eyes and the reader. Don't be lazy. This is a screenplay not a novel. Thanks buddy! Loved Crash!"

No, it just means he describes action sequences in paragraph form when they do appear. Besides the script review suggests that the second act has barely any action.

[Jack Spang]

Well, I caved. I had to know what the tone of this film would be like and whether the action would be down to earth and gritty. Sounds great. It does worry me a little the amount of action. I hope it will all slow down and the character movement will mostly dominate Act 2 and 3.

Just some minor complaints:

1) The Double O stamping on the ID is a little cheesy. Thank god it only happens in the title sequence which does sound rather cool anyway except for this little part.

2) I do love that we'll see more of Fleming's Bond but is it just me or does Bond sound even more undisciplined than he was in the books? I haven't read the books in quite a while though except for LALD and FRWL.

3) Don

Edited by Jack Spang, 10 February 2006 - 10:29 PM.

[zencat]

At least the PTS is a tight 4 minutes (going on a min per page) instead of these overlong monsters of the last few films. That's what I call "back to basics."

[Jack Spang]

Yes, it's better having a quick title sequence. However, showing Bond having to kill those two chaps in order for him to earn his double O prefix should have been played out longer. I would have liked to have seen Bond's psychology behind it - you know, how he hates killing in cold blood and the murders making him a little depressed and anxious as a result. I wish they had have used it in another part of the film, maybe as a flashback or better still, after the pre title sequence and just make the film longer in length. I don

[marktmurphy]

[quote name='Jack Spang' post='516228' date='10 February 2006 - 22:36']
I don

[Righty007]

[quote name='Jack Spang' post='516222' date='10 February 2006 - 17:23']
3) The only other thing is that I do think it is a bit of a shame is that they weren't 100% faithful to Bond's past. He was in the Navy not the SAS. Maybe they deemed this change appropriate seeing they are going with a much tougher Bond this time. I does makes sense having him coming from the SAS what with all the sorts of physical stuff we have seen Bond execute in the films. He

[Mister Asterix]

[quote name='Righty007' post='516233' date='10 February 2006 - 16:41']
[quote name='Jack Spang' post='516222' date='10 February 2006 - 17:23']
3) The only other thing is that I do think it is a bit of a shame is that they weren't 100% faithful to Bond's past. He was in the Navy not the SAS. Maybe they deemed this change appropriate seeing they are going with a much tougher Bond this time. I does makes sense having him coming from the SAS what with all the sorts of physical stuff we have seen Bond execute in the films. He

[Righty007]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516236' date='10 February 2006 - 17:48']
[quote name='Righty007' post='516233' date='10 February 2006 - 16:41']
[quote name='Jack Spang' post='516222' date='10 February 2006 - 17:23']
3) The only other thing is that I do think it is a bit of a shame is that they weren't 100% faithful to Bond's past. He was in the Navy not the SAS. Maybe they deemed this change appropriate seeing they are going with a much tougher Bond this time. I does makes sense having him coming from the SAS what with all the sorts of physical stuff we have seen Bond execute in the films. He

[james st.john smythe]

theres a useful 4 letter word, and this dude is full of it

[jaguar007]

I agree with KC - it does seem like TLD's complex plot.

Bond getting his Double O from killing someone in a bathroom?

After eating Mexican, I can do that too, without even trying!

[K1Bond007]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='516120' date='10 February 2006 - 13:37']
[quote name='Lounge Lizard' post='516103' date='10 February 2006 - 12:59']
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.
[/quote]

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

[Fletch]

Well it sounds like we're back to basics for a more grounded Bond. I am enthused. I still hope that the humour is intact and that Bond does not become a killing machine; yes, he is a state assasin but the cinematic tradition can't be ignored: he's also a playboy, a bast*rd with an eye for the birds and a taste for the good life. Will that Bond be in this film? Sounds like he may be....no hyperserious Bond here but a Conneryesque raconteour mixing it up fisticuffs, narrow escapes, and georgoeus women----yes! I expect tough, gritty 007 but also want entertainment that is not leaden and deadserious. The film reads thus far to have the exotic locales and rakish Bond at the forefront (very globetrotting those 40-odd pages!) so as it veers in a more serious direction we the audience at least will follow "our Bond" (gambler, toughguy, ladies' man, risk-taker, conseiur of the good life) there.

Edited by Fletch, 10 February 2006 - 11:37 PM.

[Fro]

This sounds fantastic as a setup to the book. A ridiclous amount of locations even in the first third of the script... this is truly going to be world-hopping. Like how they brought things up to comtemporary speed. The action advances the plot and shows Bond's character. I can see this being very, very good. Of course, I've liked the whole idea of the film being "the beginning" from the start.

The script seems like a lot but it should move pretty fast on film. These are really all the scenes listed

PTS
Titles
LeChiffe exposition
Suicide Bomber Chase
Aftermath of incident being caught on camera (LeChiffe, Newspapers, M at the House of Commons, Bond breaks into M's house) [this will really move fast]
Bahamas/Dimitrios game
Miami Chase
Exposition with M setting up the Poker Game

Even assuming all of those scenes are five minutes long (which they won't be), we're still only at the 40 minute mark.