317 replies to this topic

[YOLT]

Do these producers have no loyalty against the public or against the fans ? Or at least to Mr Ian Fleming ? They just cannot do anything they want. When will 007 be public owned; by 2022 ? ( After 70 years )

[thecasinoroyale]

Is something going on that is worth actually worrying about for the Bond canon and the future? These comments are making me nervous...

[tdalton]

Mendes said that one of the conditions of his coming back on board was that they turned a two-film plan into a single film.
 

 

I think that this should have been the first sign of trouble, if things are truly as bad as people around here are making them out to be.  This kind of screenwriting, taking two films and merging them into one, isn't something that generally works out all that well.  A lot of plot points in such a film end up going unearned, as there's half the time to develop both the character and story arcs. 

 

Given that we're now in the Nolan-ized era of 2.5-3 hour blockbuster films, it's safe to say that a 2 film arc, like what they originally had planned, would have spanned, at the very least, close to 5 hours of film and has now been condensed down to about 2.5 hours of film.  That's a lot of story being extracted from the general outline of what they're trying to accomplish.

[plankattack]

If we're morons, sheep, whatever, well, let me tell you something. I've just got back from the angelinanotcleopatra forum, and it's utter anarchy over there......

 

[Harmsway]

Is something going on that is worth actually worrying about for the Bond canon and the future? These comments are making me nervous...

Not really. I mean, Bond isn't ever going away. It's too much of a cash cow. But my current suspicion is that Bond 25 will be another reboot of sorts, given that SPECTRE will seemingly wrap the Craig era up in a way that doesn't easily lend itself to further CraigBond adventures.

 

If that's true, given how often they've reached out to him and his frequently stated interest, I suppose it's not unlikely that they've already already reached out to Christopher Nolan to gauge his interest in Bond 25. He doesn't have any projects lined up for the immediate future, though he's apparently been offered Ready Player One.

[thecasinoroyale]

*bites nails*

 

Thanks Harmsway - "SPECTRE will seemingly wrap the Craig era up in a way that doesn't easily lend itself to further CraigBond adventures." - has me intrigued.

[tdalton]

Seeing as how Craig's contracted for one more and that Broccoli and Wilson seem very keen on keeping him around for a long time, I doubt that this is it for Craig's Bond. 

[thecasinoroyale]

Is he contracted for another? Hope so.

 

EITHER way you guys are making my heart palpitate with your debate - keep it up!    Love this place.

[tdalton]

Is he contracted for another? Hope so.

 

That's been the thought that everyone's operated under for quite some time, that Bond 25 would be Craig's final turn in the role.

 

I have no idea what they have in store for the end of SPECTRE, but if it closes the door somewhat convincingly on Craig's Bond, there are still ways to bring him back, unless they do the unthinkable and actually kill Bond off. 

[Harmsway]

He is contracted for Bond 25 (though that contract was made a while back, so the situation could have changed since). I'm just not sure what Bond 25 could possibly be.

 

I guess there are ways to make a Bond 25 with Craig, just as there were technically ways to make another Bale Batman film, if you really wanted to, but in doing so, you'd have to undo what they appear to be doing with Bond's arc in SPECTRE. It'd feel like one step forward, two steps back. Maybe I'm wrong and they have something even crazier planned for Bond 25 than they do for SPECTRE. But to go that route would take the franchise into uncharted waters.

[thecasinoroyale]

Kill him off?! They can't do that....I know 'Spectre' conjures up the classic "start" of the Connery Bond films but would they use it to close the book currently on our modern Bond? Agh, no! They wouldn't.

 

 

This is probably obvious, but I've not read it, but do we know these "leaks" are official, or legit, as, to me, there's nothing to them except something anyone could knock up in a word processor - no labels, names, signatures, dates, places....I mean, it looks so amateur for a "major movie company" leak...?

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

It seems apparent that SPECTRE has nothing to do with classic Connery Bond.

[tdalton]

He is contracted for Bond 25 (though that contract was made a while back, so the situation could have changed since). I'm just not sure what Bond 25 could possibly be.

 

I guess there are ways to make a Bond 25 with Craig, just as there were technically ways to make another Bale Batman film, if you really wanted to, but in doing so, you'd have to undo what they appear to be doing with Bond's arc in SPECTRE. It'd feel like one step forward, two steps back. Maybe I'm wrong and they have something even crazier planned for Bond 25 than they do for SPECTRE. But to go that route would take the franchise into uncharted waters.

 

Well, if that's the case, then I'm somewhat on board for whatever's coming.  Going into uncharted waters is something that this franchise desperately needs.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

DELETED

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 11 December 2014 - 03:49 PM.

[thecasinoroyale]

Oh, no I understand that AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, I meant by the connotation of it being an organisation, "rebooted" for Craig's era but obviously having some similarities. It's almost a fan-boy bookend to 52 years of Bond films.

[Call Billy Bob]

Going into uncharted waters is fine, but don't do it at the expense of Bond himself. Changing what the Bond films essentially are (ie, taking the franchise completely into left field, which is what the SPECTRE leaks appear to be doing in my eyes) would be unforgivable to me...

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Oh, no I understand that AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, I meant by the connotation of it being an organisation, "rebooted" for Craig's era but obviously having some similarities. It's almost a fan-boy bookend to 52 years of Bond films.

It would be nice if that'd be the case. But apparently it's not what we're most likely getting.

[thecasinoroyale]

Yeah I doubt it would happen.

 

If they are changing what the Bond films are about, whatever THAT means will be happening....well, I just hope they don't because there's no actual need to. 'Skyfall' proved that, let's not get too....brave....?

[Call Billy Bob]

Exactly. Don't rock the boat too much.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

Going into uncharted waters is fine, but don't do it at the expense of Bond himself. Changing what the Bond films essentially are (ie, taking the franchise completely into left field, which is what the SPECTRE leaks appear to be doing in my eyes) would be unforgivable to me...

My thoughts exactly. There's nothing wrong with "reimagining" when the original form and intent are recognizable. Not so in this case.

[YOLT]

I was expecting some stuff related to his family but this is too much. Next what; James Bond is God responsible for everything ?

 

When are we going to see a decent non-personal Bond ?

[Vauxhall]

This is probably obvious, but I've not read it, but do we know these "leaks" are official, or legit, as, to me, there's nothing to them except something anyone could knock up in a word processor - no labels, names, signatures, dates, places....I mean, it looks so amateur for a "major movie company" leak...?

You'd have to take my word for it TCR, but I've verified that the notes are legitimate, but mostly date from months ago - before most, if not all, of Purvis and Wade's work, and definitely before Jez Butterworth came on board.

[mdileo007]

 

I've confirmed that these emails and apparent complaints about the script are from much earlier this year. The plot has changed substantially since then through six months of rewrites by four writers.

I'm not surprised.

FWIW, the leaks refer to at least two very, very different drafts.

Of the pages of comments that leaked, two refer to what is clearly a *very* early version, where the locations and characters don't seem to resemble what the finished product is at all.

But the other two pages refer to a substantially rewritten draft (perhaps by P&W) with the character names and locations lining up with what we currently have (and it's notable that the studio commentary--which is surprisingly insightful, I'd say--is favorable to this version). I suspect that the general shape of the story as well as its central concerns can be correctly deduced here, even if details have changed.

All four sets of pages indicate that there were still significant rewrites to be done (which have been occurring over the past year). I'm not sure this material refers to *only* John Logan stuff, even though I'm sure changes were made after the fact as other writers were brought on. With the arc they've got, it's not surprising that this needed a lot of fine-tuning. This story will require a very delicate balance (much like Skyfall).

 

Good point.  One of the emails refers to the (paraphrasing) "great job you guys have done on this draft."  By saying "guys" this must refer to P&W and their first revision.  Almost reads as if these comments are coming from Mendes.  But what is notable about these comments -- the writer states (paraphrasing again) "that they have done a great job on this draft and it includes so many classic scenes."  It then states "that the first 100 pages are terrific and terribly exciting."  It then notes that they do have work to do on the final (I'm guessing) 40 pages or so to make it all tie together and work.

 

So that sounds very positive.  I would assume by this point they have ironed out those final 40-pages to everyone's satisfaction.

 

And yes, someone on this thread mentioned the early TND draft.  That was written by Fierstein and it bears almost no relation to the finished product.

 

The other notes from this leak obviously refer to a very early draft of the script.  And thats what happens with early versions.  All interested parties read it, make their notes and suggestions and then the revisions start.

[tdalton]

Going into uncharted waters is fine, but don't do it at the expense of Bond himself. Changing what the Bond films essentially are (ie, taking the franchise completely into left field, which is what the SPECTRE leaks appear to be doing in my eyes) would be unforgivable to me...

 

I think going that direction, even if it means doing some radical things with Bond himself, is fine, so long as things ultimately get brought back to something close to what they were.

[Royal Dalton]

He is contracted for Bond 25 (though that contract was made a while back, so the situation could have changed since). I'm just not sure what Bond 25 could possibly be.

 

I guess there are ways to make a Bond 25 with Craig, just as there were technically ways to make another Bale Batman film, if you really wanted to, but in doing so, you'd have to undo what they appear to be doing with Bond's arc in SPECTRE. It'd feel like one step forward, two steps back. Maybe I'm wrong and they have something even crazier planned for Bond 25 than they do for SPECTRE. But to go that route would take the franchise into uncharted waters.

 

I think they could still use Fleming's You Only Live Twice plot for the next one, if Craig comes back. But, frankly, I'd rather they didn't now.

[thecasinoroyale]

Thanks Vaux - I have faith in you.

 

And you all, thank you....I'm a soppy git, but I've missed this sort of Bond debate with you since 'Skyfall' died down. It's good to be back!

[plankattack]

I tend to be with the likes of TDalton that uncharted waters wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. And that's because of EON themselves. I've definitely taken my fair share of shots at Babs and Mike, or Harry and Cubby for some of the things that the franchise has done over the years, but what I don't question is their integrity in understanding exactly the value of the character that they "own." 

 

There's been some clunkers over the years, sure, but it would be impossible to convince me that they're so asleep at the switch that they'd let something completely off-the-wall occur. Mendes and co are no fools either. Their reverence for the character (clearly displayed with SF - whether you like the film or not, you can't question it's a franchise love-in) isn't going to suddenly disappear and allow them to do something unimaginable.

 

Do I think Logan original script had some ideas that pushed the outer envelope? Maybe. Do I think that's why P&W (associated with 5 films and 15 years with EON) were brought back in? Probably.

 

Do I think Babs and Mike are going to kill the golden goose? No way.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

I think they could still use Fleming's You Only Live Twice plot for the next one, if Craig comes back. But, frankly, I'd rather they didn't now.

 

At the moment that is my gut feeling too... Of course this is all speculation and nothing is certain until October/November but I must say these leaks and what can be extrapolated from them have done severely dampen my hopefulness and expectations. We all could be proven wrong, but... One cannot tinker wiith Fleming's creations and mythos indefinetely.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 11 December 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Harmsway]

I think they could still use Fleming's You Only Live Twice plot for the next one, if Craig comes back.

Maybe, but if the arc of SPECTRE is to get Bond to the point where he ends up according to these leaks, it makes the arc of You Only Live Twice seem redundant.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

My premonition is that 20 years time, SPECTRE willl be seen as the biggest blunder/squandered opportunity in the franchise. I hope I am proven wrong. I pray I will be proven wrong. I nurture a glimmer of hope I will be proven wrong.

Edited by AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän, 11 December 2014 - 04:28 PM.