Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Bond 25 in 2017


181 replies to this topic

#61 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 January 2015 - 01:59 PM

Nothing new under the sun then. Most Bond movies have a weak third act, and it makes sense for this type of movie.

 

Indeed it does and only action-thrillers of the highest quality avoid this 'third act' pitfall. The one that always springs to mind is Die Hard, but that had the masterful John McTiernan at the helm. Likewise Terminator's 1&2 and Aliens which had action supremo Cameron steering the ship.

 

Most movies that depend upon building tensions and asking questions of it's characters have a weak third action. It's easy to set things up, pit elements against one another and create jeopardy.

 

The hard part - the hardest part in most creative ventures is to resolve those tensions in a way that is both satisfying and logical in terms of that within the movie universe and the character's motivations (which have to be relatable/comprehensible in any universe).

 

Action movies suffer hugely from this because it's more visceral - there's more pressure to 'show, not tell' which makes expositional dialogue stick out like a sore thumb. Craig's films, thanks to better writing and directing have suffered least from this (and that includes QoS imo which hides a gem within this barely-scripted movie).

 

Like Die Hard, Terminator and Aliens there was authorial talent at work, rather than tradesmen producing a product based upon a well worn template. Tradesman reproduce warts'n all (including the 3rd act weakness in the format). Authorial filmmakers make their own movies and great directors author great endings; i've loved the endings of all 3 of Craig's movies.

 

 

From what i've read in the bloody unavoidable news stories surrounding the Sony leak the last third of SPECTRE sounds too ambitious with it's take on Blofeld's relationship with Bond, and not that it's too boring.

 

And from what i'm reading in this thread it seems that this was P&W's rewrite. So how do we really know if Sony's grudge is with the Logan or P&W version?

 

Personally i'm not a fan of what's been suggested to be in the final third of the script. It's turning Fleming's great characters into soap fodder. They've done the family tree thing, now push on into the Fleming universe and it's exotic characters - play on the exotic instead of making everything familial, and oh so familiar. I want to see the Garden of Death, not the christmas special of Eastenders starring James Bond.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 02 January 2015 - 01:29 PM.


#62 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 01 January 2015 - 02:19 PM

Great points about the difficultly in resolving the third act of action films. It's not something I'd really thought about before but it certainly rings true for many of the Bond films - MOONRAKER is the one that immediately came to mind, although its major pitfall was being in outer space...

And from what i'm reading in this thread it seems that this was P&W's rewrite. So how do we really know if Sony's grudge is with the Logan or P&W version?

There are emails which show that Logan's work in early 2014 was a concern for both Sony and EON.

#63 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 03:44 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to be fair on Logan, he began a treatment directly after SF - which was before EON re-acquired the rights to Blofeld, SPECTRE, etc

If that's the case, I'm of the opinion that Logan had gone deep with a story and then when the decision was made to use Blofeld elements etc, P&W were brought back in, substituting characters etc, and making the major changes (third act etc) that have been speculated on.

I tend to side with those who are willing to wait 3-4 years for the next film. I realize that Marvel are churning out films and that's exactly what EON used to do. Most of Marvel's products are like of alike, variations on a theme, and IMHO that was the case when EON were working on that regimented timeframe - like of alike. The more "relaxed" pace of the current run of films has led to an improvement in quality, whether it be budget, writing, production staff, or cast, and I for one am glad for it.

Just churning out more Bond films would lead to the franchise's demise - that was very much the case 30 years ago when box office constantly declined. The only way in the modern marketplace to remain front and centre is to focus on quality. And that takes time.

#64 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 04:26 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to be fair on Logan, he began a treatment directly after SF - which was before EON re-acquired the rights to Blofeld, SPECTRE, etc

If that's the case, I'm of the opinion that Logan had gone deep with a story and then when the decision was made to use Blofeld elements etc, P&W were brought back in, substituting characters etc, and making the major changes (third act etc) that have been speculated on.

I don't know what the earliest version of Logan's proposed Bond 24/Bond 25 looked like.

But it looks like all his work from early 2014 on (and probably earlier than that) featured SPECTRE. Over that time, he tried out various different approaches to that material, so he was never wed to only one approach.

It appears that none of his work was particularly well-liked. From the details I've heard, it sounded like Logan delivered a mess on the level of his script for Star Trek: Nemesis.

#65 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 04:51 PM

It appears that none of his work was particularly well-liked. From the details I've heard, it sounded like Logan delivered a mess on the level of his script for Star Trek: Nemesis.



It's a curious process for sure. It'd be fascinating to truly understand the process on this, or any other film.

For Logan to have got the gig back in '13, he must have pitched an idea that was "liked" at the time. Was his execution flawed? Or has the whole idea been replaced? Logan and Mendes are friends - what was the latter's take while Logan was pitching or fleshing out his original idea?

It does appear that EON lets writers go off and work in a vacuum. I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. I just find it interesting that a first draft can come in and then be completely disregarded (a la Peter Morgan's work on SF). Me? I just assume it would be different, that there would be more "checking in":

Plankattack, new CEO at EON "Hey John. How's your SPECTRE 1st draft coming along?"
Logan "Pretty good. The hook of 007 in retirement running an ice cream van in Scunthorpe really gives my idea its emotional foundation"
Plank "Ice cream truck? WTF?? Kill that idea. Unless you can turn it into an action scene."
Logan "Let me get back to you in a month."

I know TSWLM and TND both came about after teams of writers all getting a go after an original idea was put on the table. I know TWINE got a lot of rewriting after Apted came on board. But I find it interesting that Logan can put it in an original pitch that gets the green light, only to have it be rejected? I'd love to know how much or exactly what survives in terms of the finished product. I know, I know, we'll never know....but the whole process is truly fascinating to me.

#66 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 01 January 2015 - 04:53 PM

Nothing new under the sun then. Most Bond movies have a weak third act, and it makes sense for this type of movie.

Indeed it does and only action-thrillers of the highest quality avoid this 'third act' pitfall. The one that always springs to mind is Die Hard, but that had the masterful John McTiernan at the helm. Likewise Terminator's 1&2 and Aliens which had action supremo Cameron steering the ship.
 
Most movies that depend upon building tensions and asking questions of it's characters have a weak third action. It's easy to set things up, pit elements against one another and jeopardy.
 
The hard part - the hardest part in most creative ventures is to resolve those tensions in a way that is both satisfying and logical in terms of the that within the movie universe and the character's motivations (which have to be relatable/comprehensible in any universe).
 
Action movies suffer hugely from this because it's more visceral - there's more pressure to 'show, not tell' which makes expositional dialogue stick out like a sore thumb. Craig's films, thanks to better writing and directing have suffered least from this (and that includes QoS imo which hides a gem within this barely-scripted movie).
 
Like Die Hard, Terminator and Aliens there was authorial talent at work, rather than tradesman producing a product. Tradesman reproduce warts'n all (including the 3rd act weakness in the format). Authorial filmmakers make their own movies and great directors author great endings; i've loved the endings of all 3 of Craig's movies.

I think the fact that it is a franchise film also makes things more difficult. The protagonist and the world he lives in are already established before the movie even begins. So the "first act" in a Bond Movie is almost like the second act in any other "normal" movie.

DAF, MR, AVTAK and TND are the most obvious examples of Bonds that get progressively worse with each new act.
YOLT, TSWLM, TLD, GE, TWINE, DAD and CR also struggles to resolve things in the third act.

#67 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 04:55 PM

Is it possible Logan was briefed Eon would try to put an end to the whole mess by settling? After all you could only really buy the Blofeld character rights if they were up for sale in the first place, perhaps even for some time. And who else would be in a position to buy them if not Eon; they must have been aware of the price and that all could go relatively fast once they agreed on it. If even Logan's early work featured SPECTRE he must have been fairly certain he could use them and Blofeld. It's a shame we'll most likely never get to know the details about that particular sequence of events. Strikes me it would make an interesting final chapter to Sellers' BATTLE FOR BOND.

Edited by Dustin, 01 January 2015 - 04:58 PM.


#68 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 05:18 PM

For Logan to have got the gig back in '13, he must have pitched an idea that was "liked" at the time.

It would seem that Logan's early idea was seriously considered. Ejiofor was initially considered as the villain because of Logan's original story idea.

Or has the whole idea been replaced?

It's been replaced. There is reason to believe that Logan took a few stabs at the newer idea before P&W came on board (it looks like he'll get primary screenplay credit), but he couldn't bring it all together.

#69 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 01 January 2015 - 05:20 PM

Ejiofor was initially considered as the villain because of Logan's original story idea.

 

Wasn't he penciled in for Andrew Scott's role?



#70 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 05:29 PM


Ejiofor was initially considered as the villain because of Logan's original story idea.


Wasn't he penciled in for Andrew Scott's role?
Only after they scrapped the first idea. Andrew Scott's role was a kind of consolation prize for Ejiofor.

#71 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 01 January 2015 - 09:43 PM

Great points about the difficultly in resolving the third act of action films. It's not something I'd really thought about before but it certainly rings true for many of the Bond films - MOONRAKER is the one that immediately came to mind, although its major pitfall was being in outer space...
 

And from what i'm reading in this thread it seems that this was P&W's rewrite. So how do we really know if Sony's grudge is with the Logan or P&W version?

There are emails which show that Logan's work in early 2014 was a concern for both Sony and EON.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

This is all sounding like an absolute mess of a pre-production.  

 

I can't see Logan writing a Blofeld script, or for that matter Sony and Eon paying Logan his vast salary, without knowing for absolute certain that Blofeld would belong to Eon in a reasonable window of time. But how could they have known - such court cases can drag out indefinitely?

 

So either backroom agreements were made before the verdict/settlement, which i doubt because [i think] there's a longish delay between Logan starting the Bond24 script and Eon winning the right to use Blofeld, so that scenario might stink a little too much of nefarious dealings, which i doubt happened tbh.

 

The alternative is that Logan's scripts didn't  feature Blofeld/Sprectre, but when they finally got the rights Eon and Sony wanted Blofeld in the next Bond movie:

 

Sony Exec: "Hey, Logan! Would you mind changing the name of your script's villain to Blofeld? Oh, and him to say Spectre really menacingly a few times, there's a good chap."

 

Logan: "F*** off!"

 

Logan leaves/is fired. Ejiofor leaves/is fired.

 

It's all starting to make a little sense, now. Sadly that probably means the film will make little sense.  

 

 

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD:

[though you've probably all read the same mainstream news stories i have]

 

 

 

Maybe the Familial aspect of Logan's script was about a villain he'd created. This twist wouldn't be as bad since Blofeld isn't involved. Then Blofeld's being forced into Logan's script as this villain and that twist becomes an awful revelation that he knows the audience will hate. That makes more sense to me than an experienced write like Logan thinking the rumoured twist is good one.



#72 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 10:15 PM

 But how could they have known - such court cases can drag out indefinitely?

 

There wasn't a court case. They purchased the rights from the owners.



#73 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5786 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 10:23 PM

That's what I meant, there must have been a price tag in the air and Eon was prepared to go for it, the easiest solution.

#74 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 01 January 2015 - 10:26 PM

I can't see Logan writing a Blofeld script, or for that matter Sony and Eon paying Logan his vast salary, without knowing for absolute certain that Blofeld would belong to Eon in a reasonable window of time.

We don't know what Logan had written prior to EON definitively obtaining the rights in November 2013, but EON may have had an inkling that they'd get the rights before that time. Logan's pitch--that EON rejected early on in Bond 24's development--involved a dramatic (and horribly misguided) reinvention of the SPECTRE organization. It was after that pitch was put aside in early 2014 that Ejiofor was no longer deemed suitable as the lead villain.

Logan apparently stayed on board for a bit after his initial take was rejected. Before Logan finally stepped aside, he was working on something closer--though not *that* close--to what ended up being the final story.
 

Sadly that probably means the film will make little sense.

After Logan's work was done, substantial rewrites occurred. I think they successfully got things back on track.

#75 JCRendle

JCRendle

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3639 posts
  • Location:Her Majesty's England

Posted 01 January 2015 - 11:15 PM

What are the exact details of Eon/Danjaq acquiring the rights? This article states that the dispute was "settled", and mentioned that the estate sells the rights, but does anyone know the details?



#76 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 January 2015 - 01:48 AM

 

I can't see Logan writing a Blofeld script, or for that matter Sony and Eon paying Logan his vast salary, without knowing for absolute certain that Blofeld would belong to Eon in a reasonable window of time.

We don't know what Logan had written prior to EON definitively obtaining the rights in November 2013, but EON may have had an inkling that they'd get the rights before that time. Logan's pitch--that EON rejected early on in Bond 24's development--involved a dramatic (and horribly misguided) reinvention of the SPECTRE organization. It was after that pitch was put aside in early 2014 that Ejiofor was no longer deemed suitable as the lead villain.

 

Indeed so. After Ejiofor, I also have vague reason to believe they briefly considered the idea of a female Blofeld (aiming for probably the top actress of her generation), before moving towards the more traditional interpretation that Christoph Waltz would presumably bring.



#77 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 02:29 AM

A lot of talk here that Ejiofor was "onboard." But looking around the net (!!!) it does seem to be all based around one report that quoted "sources" which was re-hashed across a couple of top-line outlets and some blogs. The "sources" report that no offer had been made, and the strongest comment was that Ejiofor was the "top choice." Absolutely nothing is stronger or more definitive than that (and yes I know, that's how the business works) but isn't it a stretch on our part that he was "fired" or let go from a part that no-one can actually confirm existing, being offered, or being accepted? I only say that, in that you if you accept his involvement, then you can infer the Logan draft timeline a certain way. I tend to see Logan's involvement and P&W's, other playwright guy (forgotten his name) as entirely separate from Ejiofor's involved/not involved, status as I haven't seen anything to put it much beyond blogger wishful-thinking.

Personally I saw the validity to Ejiofor's involvement (and it would've been great to have had him onboard as IMHO he's a terrific actor) on a par with the "Idris Elba is the next Bond" story. Exactly that. A story.

#78 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 January 2015 - 02:31 AM

This much is true: Sam Mendes and the producers held talks with Chiwetel Ejiofor about being Blofeld. At some point, the character changed so that he was no longer suitable. They then offered him Andrew Scott's role, but he declined.



#79 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 02:35 AM

This much is true: Sam Mendes and the producers held talks with Chiwetel Ejiofor about being Blofeld. At some point, the character changed so that he was no longer suitable. They then offered him Andrew Scott's role, but he declined.


As it's you Vauxhall, I'll take it as gospel!! :)

I just tend to be a little wary of some the reporting that does end up being nothing more than wishful thinking! Frankly the sort of stuff that wouldn't make it beyond our forum!

#80 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 January 2015 - 02:41 AM

 

This much is true: Sam Mendes and the producers held talks with Chiwetel Ejiofor about being Blofeld. At some point, the character changed so that he was no longer suitable. They then offered him Andrew Scott's role, but he declined.


As it's you Vauxhall, I'll take it as gospel!! :)

I just tend to be a little wary of some the reporting that does end up being nothing more than wishful thinking! Frankly the sort of stuff that wouldn't make it beyond our forum!

 

 

Ha, that's very kind :)

 

Yeah, there seems to be an endless supply of rumours where 2 and 2 are put together to make 5, and the reports get massively overblown. There are obviously still lots of unknowns about the search for the villain, but, in general terms, the above is how I understand it played out.



#81 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 02 January 2015 - 12:09 PM

This much is true: Sam Mendes and the producers held talks with Chiwetel Ejiofor about being Blofeld. At some point, the character changed so that he was no longer suitable. They then offered him Andrew Scott's role, but he declined.

The familial rumour would be a pretty good reason for a black actor having to be replaced with a white!

 

Wouldn't that suggest this familial plot point developed after Ejiofor's meeting? So maybe those Sony emails aren't quite as old as they say they are! All speculation of course, but speculation is the fun part ;)

 

Assuming hypothetically  that i'm right and Ejiofor was replaced because of the development familial plot twist, then it's ironic that Sony rightfully deemed it as 'jumping the reboot shark' and demanded it cut, so they could've kept Ejiofor after all. Hopefully Waltz will give us a Blofeld that makes the loss of Ejiofor due temporary familial addition to the script all worthwhile (hypothetically speaking ;).

 

I love Waltz in the hands of directors other than Tarantino and Polanski, but his only big-bad villain role is in Michael Gondry's Green Hornet and it was a pretty by-the-numbers textbook villain performance (finger's crossed he's inspired by Mendes - hopefully a safe bet after the performance Mendes got from Bardem).

 

Btw, sorry if my vague reference to the 'familial' plot point is annoying, but i don't wanna spoil anything for those still avoiding the rumours (although, lets face it, it's not that subtle)


Yeah, there seems to be an endless supply of rumours where 2 and 2 are put together to make 5

 

5, 6 and 007  ;)



#82 Vauxhall

Vauxhall

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10744 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 January 2015 - 12:15 PM

 

Yeah, there seems to be an endless supply of rumours where 2 and 2 are put together to make 5

 

5, 6 and 007   ;)

 

 

Ha, great minds, I initially wrote exactly that!

 

Without the bizarre rumours, we'd have very little to talk about. Now, I wonder where Connery's cameo will fit in... ;)



#83 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 02 January 2015 - 01:21 PM

Now, I wonder where Connery's cameo will fit in... ;)

 

Blofeld's cat, Pusshy?



#84 sharpshooter

sharpshooter

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8996 posts

Posted 02 January 2015 - 03:21 PM

Now, I wonder where Connery's cameo will fit in... ;)

Blofeld's cat, Pusshy?
Remember that weird CR era rumour where Connery would play an old man cowering underneath a table?

#85 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 07 January 2015 - 04:21 AM

If Bond 25 is to continue a story started in SPECTRE, does it make it more likely that it will be released in 2017?

 

It's just that most of the casual cinema-goers who make the 007 movies so successful would have forgotten what had happened in the previous one. One of the good things about the 2 years between CR and QOS was that at least most of the viewers remembered who Vesper and Mr White were.



#86 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 07 January 2015 - 12:26 PM

If Bond 25 is to continue a story started in SPECTRE, does it make it more likely that it will be released in 2017?

Absolutely!

 

Craig's age and SPECTRE's reintroduction both scream of the shortest possible window between instalments.



#87 bond_azoozbond

bond_azoozbond

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 383 posts
  • Location:Portland,OR

Posted 19 January 2015 - 10:16 AM

Bond should spend some time in Japan .. I have a feeling that Bond 25 will set in Japan ..

#88 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 19 January 2015 - 10:48 AM

Bond hasn't been to Jamaica for a long time!  Perhaps that might crop up in Bond 26? After 007 has entered The Garden Of Death and slain the dragon therein, etc?

 

By the way, Dustin makes a good point about the book "The Battle For Bond". I wonder if the publishers will re-release it, with an extra chapter about "Spectre"?



#89 Odd Jobbies

Odd Jobbies

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1573 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 19 January 2015 - 01:02 PM

They're crazy if they don't use all that untapped material in Fleming's YOLT!

 

They should be looking to it's finale in The Garden of Death in Japan in B25. Assuming that may well be Craig's last Bond film it's crazy not to end that as Fleming did. Amnesia, followed by a misguided boat to the bad guys after remembering only half the truth and thinking he's a Russian agent. They could have him thinking he's a SPECTRE agent - end the film that way. What a great ending that would be.

 

Between films SPECTRE brainwashes Bond, gives him plastic surgery (transforming him into the actor they choose as Bond 7) and sends him back to MI:6 to kill M. In other words it's the start of Fleming's TMWTGG, but with SPECTRE instead of Russia.

 

 

ETA: On reflection, why on earth SPECTRE would want to change Bond's appearance i don't know. Oh well, would've been a fun element.


Edited by Odd Jobbies, 19 January 2015 - 01:37 PM.


#90 DamnCoffee

DamnCoffee

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 24459 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 19 January 2015 - 01:40 PM

If Bond 25 is to continue a story started in SPECTRE, does it make it more likely that it will be released in 2017?

 

To be honest with you, if Bond 25 where to be released in 2017, I'd be more worried than happy about the whole thing. I think I'm finally used to the idea for a Bond film to be every 3 years now. I'd rather an extra year be used to focus on story, characters, set pieces and the like rather than getting a severely rushed film out within two years of the last one. I'd only be truly sold on the idea if they have an idea for a two part film and both are in production at the same time and shot back to back. Or at least in the script development stage when the first part is filming. I think nowadays if a film has been in production for more than 2 years then it has no excuse not to be good really.

 

Ideally, if everything turns out well, then Craig will be returning for a final time in Shatterhand, released November 2018, bringing his total up to five Bond films. Pretty solid run don't you think? Casino Royale and Skyfall will be remembered as classics, but who knows what the future holds! SPECTRE could be the best yet.