935 replies to this topic

[coco1997]

I agree with terminus. Very good revision to the treatment. Only a few tweaks here and there and I'd say we're as good as done. Here are few ideas/suggestions I came up with while reading your re-draft :

1. The PTS could stand to use a bit more detail, and I do like CT's suggestion of having Bond interrogate the driver by hijacking the car and then hanging him out of an open door, then dangling him out of the car and dropping him into an old minefield. As an added note, the parachutist doesn't need to be a woman. I basically got the entire concept for the PTS from doing an extensive read-through of the "Making of OHMSS" book in which a sequence very similar to what we have here is mentioned as being in an early draft of "DAF". In that version, the parachutist is Tiffany Case and the person driving the Land Rover is Irma Bunt.

2. Bond should get the Aston Martin Virage from Q when he returns to London. And, since terminus made the car 'fully stocked', I think we need to showcase it in a car chase at some point.

3. Maybe the implication can be that Chun wants Sienna's freedom not just for political reasons, but because they were former lovers? It could be a nod to Pussy's implied lesbianism in "Goldfinger". In addition, it could serve as another time-warping homage to the controversial 1995 film "Wild Side" in which Joan Chen and Anne Heche both play lesbians conspiring against their pimping boss, played by Christopher Walken. It doesn't need to be anything complex--maybe just a line or two of dialogue between Chun and Bond.

[terminus]

I agree with terminus. Very good revision to the treatment. Only a few tweaks here and there and I'd say we're as good as done. Here are few ideas/suggestions I came up with while reading your re-draft :

1. The PTS could stand to use a bit more detail, and I do like CT's suggestion of having Bond interrogate the driver by hijacking the car and then hanging him out of an open door, then dangling him out of the car and dropping him into an old minefield. As an added note, the parachutist doesn't need to be a woman. I basically got the entire concept for the PTS from doing an extensive read-through of the "Making of OHMSS" book in which a sequence very similar to what we have here is mentioned as being in an early draft of "DAF". In that version, the parachutist is Tiffany Case and the person driving the Land Rover is Irma Bunt.

2. Bond should get the Aston Martin Virage from Q when he returns to London. And, since terminus made the car 'fully stocked', I think we need to showcase it in some sort of car chase at some point.

3. Maybe the implication can be that Chun wants Sienna's freedom not just for political reasons, but because they were former lovers? It could be a nice homage to Pussy's implied lesbianism in "Goldfinger". In addition, it could serve as another time-warping homage to the controversial 1995 film in which Joan Chen and Anne Heche both play lesbians conspiring against their pimping boss, played by Christopher Walken. It doesn't need to be anything complex--maybe just a line or two of dialogue between Chun and Bond.

1) I'm happy with whatever direction is taken - but the parachuter could easily be the third Bond girl that hasn't been cast yet. It would also allow us to have a traditional PTS girl - a la Linda, as I have said. What are your thoughts on that? And the casting of the girl?

2) Perhaps there could be some sort of pursuit sequence in Italy? It's shaping up to be a pretty lengthy sequence already - but there isn't really anywhere else that a pursuit could be positioned.

3) I did ponder suggesting that, it would certainly be an interesting twist to the relationship between Chun and Sienna.

[tdalton]

2) Perhaps there could be some sort of pursuit sequence in Italy? It's shaping up to be a pretty lengthy sequence already - but there isn't really anywhere else that a pursuit could be positioned.

I had actually put some serious thought into segueing the foot chase through the catacombs into some kind of car chase when I was trying to develop the sequence. I had kind of put the whole sequence on the back burner in favor of my Christmas story for the other thread when it looked as though this project was starting to head off into a number of different directions (changing villains, etc.), and I didn't want to take the time to fully develop something only to have to scrap it because things looked like they may be changing drastically from the original outline that I had been working my scene off of.

[coco1997]

If the foot chase can evolve into a car chase through Rome, that would be fantastic!

And I was talking with terminus and decided a suitable casting choice for the parachute girl could be Rachel Ticotin, who starred in "Total Recall" in 1990.

[tdalton]

If the foot chase can evolve into a car chase through Rome, that would be fantastic!

Part of the idea that I was kicking around for that particular scene would be to have the mute henchman ,that we really haven't given anything to do, down in the catacombs with Granger, which I think would add to the creepiness of the scene. Imagine being Bond and walking into a series of catacombs, the walls of which are lined with skulls and full-skeletons, seeing an LSD-tripping Granger committing a murder while also seeing a tall, menacing-looking man that's had his throat slashed (I'm assuming that this is what was meant by him having a heavily scarred throat). I think even that image would have Bond shaking in his shoes for a bit, even if it's only for a brief moment.

Anyway, given that the henchman would be down there with him, maybe Granger gets away (or jumps into the backseat of the car, it would have to be either as I can't imagine someone coming off an LSD trip would be able to drive), and Bond continues chasing the henchman through the streets of Rome in the Aston Martin.

[terminus]

I'm sure that could be worked in

[coco1997]

Taking care of the third girl field made me realize the title sequence description is still empty. I know I had originally proposed that we go for the typical 'nude silhouettes w/ guns, etc.' idea, but perhaps something involving drug and dream-like imagery to go along with the LSD theme would fit better?

[terminus]

Good idea - but the Dalton title sequences weren't exactly known for their creativity, in fact, if anything the reverse is true. We've had a drug induced PTS with one of our Craig treatments (Kaleidoscope iirc) so I wouldn't necessarily want to go down the same route here (admittedly, it is a good 10 years between FTWD and KD).

Maybe something simple, something a bit identikit to TLD and LTK - yet with a computer circuitry motif, like LTK had the casino motif?

[coco1997]

(Admittedly, it is a good 10 years between FTWD and KD).

Ten years? Try twenty.

And a computer circuitry motif could work just as well.

[terminus]

Whoops? Clumsy fingers!

[Mr. Blofeld]

I like the way this plot is shaping up; how does the title fit into the film, however? Dalton never had any one-word titles; maybe we could call the film Corinthian?

My idea for the parachutist was that she was Chun; what she does after Bond subdues the driver of the Land Rover was never specified in the initial proforma, and hence, that's why Chun dropped out of the sky in my conception of the finale -- because she's a sky diver, and, hence, was the parachutist.

Just an idea.

[dinovelvet]

I like the way this plot is shaping up; how does the title fit into the film, however? Dalton never had any one-word titles; maybe we could call the film Corinthian?

I like the idea of naming the film after the virus. However, Corinthian is a bit clunky as a title. Now if the virus were to be called Shatterhand or Shamelady...

[terminus]

Re: the parachutist being Chun. Not sure it works, to be honest - it doesn't make much sense in the context of the plot that has been put forth. I think the suggestion in CT's outline was that she would be an agent of either an enemy power or working for another of the drug lords that Bond has upset, thus she'd be South American and played by Rachel Ticotin (as coco said, she was in Total Recall in 1990).

I'm imagining that, as suggested above, that after Bond has dispatched the drug baron in the 4x4 - he heads to a rendezvous with the parachutist and 'disarms' her. A bit of a cross between the sequences with Linda in TLD and the Pola Ivanova hot-tub scene in AVTAK.

Re: the title. I suppose the title could tie into something the villain says - or something that Bond says - it derives from the saying in Corinthian (I believe) that says 'Eat, drink and be merry - for tomorrow we die'. It essentially means that we should enjoy life as much as possible and live for the moment, because we never know when we might die.

That said - it was a working title, so I'd be fine with changing it. But, like dino said, I'm not so keen on Corinthian as a title - and we've used Shatterhand as a title already in the Ultimate Craig treatments.

Anyone got any suggestions?

[coco1997]

I do like the title "For Tomorrow We Die". While naming the story after the virus is a nice idea, "Corinthian" just doesn't jump out at me as being the name of a James Bond film.

[SamuelKevlar]

The title could be referenced in an exchange between Bond and Chun, just before going out to take on the baddies. "We could die tomorrow." "Then tonight..." It's a sensibility they share.

As for the lesbian thing, funny you should bring that up because I did consider it and would be fine with putting it in. Chun is played in the first half of the film as a mysterious, amoral figure, but it turns out she's doing it all for love. Maybe once they meet in the airport Sienna can run to Chun and, to Bond's surprise, start making out with her. Everything Sienna's been involved in up to then has been an action sequence so there hasn't been much time for her to show an interest in Bond - now we see she actually has no interest in Bond. Sienna is straight-up lesbian and in love with Chun, who is bisexual and tends to keep people at arm's length. But it is implied that once she's done with Bond in the hot springs she'll return to Sienna.

A car chase after the catacombs encounter sounds cool. I've left that sequence pretty much as it was because others were developing it. Not sure where Chun would be at this point. It's eerier if he's in the catacombs alone, but she has no real reason to leave him. Maybe she has to lay low for a bit because the police are after her? Bond is working with the carabinieri to tackle the murders at this point, isn't he? I like the idea that he's protecting a fugitive from the authorities - still walking the knife's edge between being MI6's man and a vigilante.

Hey, that could be an image for the title sequence.

Chun being the parachutist at the beginning makes absolutely no sense. I like the idea of this being the bit-player girl and her being almost immediately won over and seduced by Bond. Would like to see this action sequence expanded a bit, though. Seems a little unspectacular for a 1990 flick.

I had Savatier as Stahl's henchman more than Granger's, but I suppose he could be in the catacombs - would tie Granger and Stahl together too. He'd just have to survive the helicopter crash on the slopes.

[coco1997]

Lots of good thoughts, Sam. I'm glad you approve of the Chun as a lesbian idea. Good work on expanding that idea, as well. Maybe since terminus proposed the Virage as the gadget-packed car, he could do a short writeup of a car chase through Rome following tdalton's catacombs sequence.

I also really like your idea about having Bond/silhouetted nudes 'walking the edge' of a giant knife as the primary theme of the title sequence. That combined with some sort of computer imagery would automatically make for a much more interesting credit sequence than what we got with either "TLD" or "LTK".

As for your suggestion that the PTS might be a little too underwhelming for a 1990 film, there's some merit to that--but I figured since Bond is not yet back with MI6 and therefore not on an official mission, the PTS should be a bit more low key. CT had some good ideas on how to beef it up a bit.

[terminus]

1990 would have also been about the time that the Sandra Bernhard/Madonna relationship was in the public eye - so the Chun/Sienna relationship might have been derived from that, if the movie were actually produced in 1990

Re: the final line of the movie, with the current closing scene running as such:

Later, Bond and Chun relax in a local nature spa, naked, enjoying the hot springs. "I'm still not sure I trust you," she says, embracing him. "I don't think it matters," is Bond's reply. And as they kiss, we pan up, fade out, and...

If we can want to go with a bit more of a double entendre - perhaps the closing exchange would be: "You know, Chun, I'm still not sure I've got a handle on you -" Chun smirks, leans in for a kiss: "Could have fooled me, James."

No?

[Mr. Blofeld]

We could always go the Lewis Gilbert route; i.e., show the villains' plot being set into motion, cut to MI6, et. al., then cut to Bond -- could make for a nice inversion, with M stopping himself from asking Moneypenny where 007 is, only to still cut to Bond. Fills out the PTS a bit more, certainly...

[terminus]

It's certainly an idea.

[Captain Tightpants]

I'm sorry? There is completely enough room to insert Stahl in the capacity that I've been describing - and which other posters appear to have supported - without disrupting the flow of the treatment that you have described. Look at the options you've given - either Granger is used exactly as you want him to be, or he's not used at all. If that isn't the aforementioned toys being thrown out of the pram, I don't know what is.

I tried to find a solution that would appease everyone. There was a third option: that Stahl would be the main villain and Granger his henchman. But as I created Granger, I have the right to see him used as how I would like. Since I think he would be a very poor choice as a henchman as he would be in danger of overshadowing Stahl, I didn't include it.

So, Granger is out. End of story.

[coco1997]

I'm sorry? There is completely enough room to insert Stahl in the capacity that I've been describing - and which other posters appear to have supported - without disrupting the flow of the treatment that you have described. Look at the options you've given - either Granger is used exactly as you want him to be, or he's not used at all. If that isn't the aforementioned toys being thrown out of the pram, I don't know what is.

I tried to find a solution that would appease everyone. There was a third option: that Stahl would be the main villain and Granger his henchman. But as I created Granger, I have the right to see him used as how I would like. Since I think he would be a very poor choice as a henchman as he would be in danger of overshadowing Stahl, I didn't include it.

So, Granger is out. End of story.

So because the character didn't turn out exactly how you envisioned, you want to rescind the character and make us totally change the story? I'm sorry, CT, I've always respected and enjoyed your ideas but that just doesn't make sense. You're not the only one whose ideas have changed over the course of the project. It happened to several of tdalton's characters quite a few times during the Craig UBs but he was willing to compromise for the betterment of the project.

[terminus]

I tried to find a solution that would appease everyone. There was a third option: that Stahl would be the main villain and Granger his henchman. But as I created Granger, I have the right to see him used as how I would like. Since I think he would be a very poor choice as a henchman as he would be in danger of overshadowing Stahl, I didn't include it.

So, Granger is out. End of story.

I don't know how to respond to this. I'm certainly upset - surprised - perplexed.

There has been nothing done to the treatment that has been detrimental to the character of Granger - he's certainly not a henchman, he's a co-villain. His death comes before Stahl, sure, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

You wrote one version of the treatment, but I don't think it was ever said that was to be the concrete version of the treatment - and several posters (myself included) proposed a sequence for the New Zealand finale. It's all part of the collaborative process of the project - you've written a version that you think works, but then you need to let other people have their say and allow others to contribute to the treatment. Even if it means that your vision gets slightly altered in the process - as happened several times during the Craig Era treatments and it happened with the character of Spang in My Enemy's Enemy and as occured with Everything or Nothing and some elements of Semper Occultus.

I hope you don't think that the difference of opinion is personal on anyone's behalf, it isn't on mine and I'm sure it isn't on anyone else's either. Ultimately, it's a shame if you feel this way and you want to make this action - but it is your decision to make and you've free to make it.

[tdalton]

It happened to several of tdalton's characters quite a few times during the Craig UBs but he was willing to compromise for the betterment of the project.

I can think of one time in particular, the one that was the beginning of the trilogy we ended the Craig tenure with (the one where I had Jackie Earle Haley and Melanie Laurent cast in the roles of the villains). That particular project took the villain from being a flesh and blood villain who was a master of disguise to someone that didn't even exist, took the henchwoman from being a henchwoman to the big bad of the entire trilogy (short of the head of quantum, of course), which was, IMO, far more of a drastic change than anything that has gone on here.

The only character that has turned out pretty closely to what I had imagined them to be from the outset was Mary Goodnight, and even on that one I had envisioned her ending up with Bond at the end of the character arc. With that said, though, that's part of what makes the game fun, in that the ideas change when others give their input. I've found it quite enjoyable to help develop characters with a group, and find that sometimes they've ended up being better than the initial idea (Quinn being an example of that, going from henchwoman to a big bad through the course of the development of that project).

Edited by tdalton, 23 December 2010 - 01:11 AM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, at least you can understand where I'm coming from on this one. But I'm pulling Granger out anyway. And I won't be using him in UB-Brosnan, either. I don't even know if I'll even take part in UB-Brosnan. The problem in all of this is that nobody actually said that Stahl would be the main villain until well after we'd started shaping a draft. Nobody raised any objections to what we were discussing and then we were going, and then suddenly there was this "general consensus" that Stahl would be the villain, undoing absolutely everything that we'd worked on. And not just in the treatment draft - some of the proform entries appear to have been crafted with Granger in mind as the main villain. So, Granger is out. I've already decided. He won't be appearing in UB-Dalton, and he won't be appearing in UB-Brosnan. I'd also ask that nobody submit Granger (or somebody with the same basic concept) for UB-Brosnan in my absence.

[coco1997]

Well, at least you can understand where I'm coming from on this one. But I'm pulling Granger out anyway. And I won't be using him in UB-Brosnan, either. I don't even know if I'll even take part in UB-Brosnan. The problem in all of this is that nobody actually said that Stahl would be the main villain until well after we'd started shaping a draft. Nobody raised any objections to what we were discussing and then we were going, and then suddenly there was this "general consensus" that Stahl would be the villain, undoing absolutely everything that we'd worked on. And not just in the treatment draft - some of the proform entries appear to have been crafted with Granger in mind as the main villain. So, Granger is out. I've already decided. He won't be appearing in UB-Dalton, and he won't be appearing in UB-Brosnan. I'd also ask that nobody submit Granger (or somebody with the same basic concept) for UB-Brosnan in my absence.

I don't see where you got this idea that everyone thinks he should be the main villain. I admit I missed a lot of the discussion yesterday because I was out of the house all day, but I did catch up on everything and I don't recall that being mentioned. Maybe I'm wrong.

CT, it would bother ME if you took out the character because frankly I think he's more interesting than the character I created. That should be good enough reason to allow him to remain in the story, on top of the fact that everyone seems to be OK with the current treatment, barring a few tweaks here and there. If tdalton can be willing to let his characters undergo complete transformations, occasionally against his best wishes, why can't you?

[dinovelvet]

This kind of nonsense is exactly why I stopped playing a few months ago.

[coco1997]

This kind of nonsense is exactly why I stopped playing a few months ago.

Wow, dino. I had no idea. At least that would explain why you ignored my invitations to participate in the games from which you sat out.

[terminus]

This kind of nonsense is exactly why I stopped playing a few months ago.

It's sad that you feel that way I think we may all need to just take a step back, take a deep breath and look at what's happened and check to see how we can stop it happening in the future.

I feel guilty that you feel that way, dino, as I'm the guy nominally in charge of the game and I try to make it a resonably enjoyable and stimulating project for everyone concerned.

[tdalton]

This kind of nonsense is exactly why I stopped playing a few months ago.

It's sad that you feel that way I think we may all need to just take a step back, take a deep breath and look at what's happened and check to see how we can stop it happening in the future.

I feel guilty that you feel that way, dino, as I'm the guy nominally in charge of the game and I try to make it a resonably enjoyable and stimulating project for everyone concerned.

I must admit that I'm partially confused by what's even going on at the present moment. I don't see where all that much has changed in terms of the story outline where both of the villains are concerned. All I've seen, and like coco1997 I've been away from the computer for a bit yesterday so maybe I'm a bit behind, are very minor changes made here and there to a story that always had two villains, and still has two villains (or did have two villains).

Maybe someone could fill me in on what I'm missing?

Edited by tdalton, 23 December 2010 - 01:34 AM.

[coco1997]

I'm not exactly sure, t.

From what I can tell, Captain Tightpants did not like the way his character was being used in the story due to the 'group consensus' that my character, Moritz Stahl, be promoted from secondary villain to primary villain. However, I never actually approved of or supported this idea; it seems like it was made in my absence. I'm not OPPOSED to making Stahl the main villain, but not if it causes CT to react so negatively to the point that he removes the character entirely from the outline and threatens to quit UB. CT has been one of the most consistent contributors to the project since the very beginning and it would be a damned shame to lose him. As it is, what started as having over ten contributors has since boiled down to the core group of six or seven--myself, terminus, tdalton, Tightpants, Mr. Blofeld, SamuelKevlar and dinovelvet--even though, as terminus stated when he first started the UB project, the ideal goal is to have at least ten contributors. Still, I think we've gotten on quite well with the small group of active contributors we've had.

Bottom line is, I think CT is very passionate about his own ideas and characters and wants their use in the story to fulfill his original vision for them. I respect that 100%. However, due to the collaborative nature of the project, no one is ALWAYS going to be on the same wavelength about everything 24/7. Compromises have to be made if anything is ever going to get done. I'm sure it's happened countless times since the project started up again this past June. The way I see it, nothing has been changed to the Granger character.