9 replies to this topic

[James Page]

A few thoughts on the leaked screenplay that everyone's been talking about...

--------------------------------------

Bond's torture sequence centres around the death of his wife, Tracy. This would appear to go against the EON mindset of always moving forwards, never going back. This would be the first time that Bond has openly confronted the death of Tracy since he visited her grave in "For Your Eyes Only". However, Brosnan has repeatedly stated his wish to play bring depth to Bond's character, and these excerpts certainly would give him that mandate.

There are several nods to previous Bond outings during the screenplay excerpts. MGM are are, and will be, pushing this as Bond's 40th anniversary rather than Bond's 20th outing, so maybe these tongue-in-cheek references are in light of the push from the studio.

One thing that is nagging at the cynics of this leak is that a "script" from Bond 20 was found in the canteen of Pinewood Studios some time ago. This was soon concluded to be a piece of fan-fiction but has yet to ripple to the surface outside of Pinewood and EON. Is this leak from that debunked script, or is genuine? Only time will tell...

If the excepts are genuine, it must be borne in mind that the first draft of any Bond film changes drastically up to, and include, the time of shooting. Remember that Diamonds Are Forever was to feature Goldfinger's twin brother with a laser on a supertanker... That is how much the process can change the end result.

--------------------------

Just a few of my thoughts on what we know so far... (full article on MI6)

=
J

[zencat]

Jim (08 Aug, 2001 08:08 a.m.):
There's a danger of alienating the wider audience, those who really make EON money, those who wouldn't know a continuity reference if it hit them in the face, i.e the people who (god forbid) go to see a James Bond film to be entertained. The greater percentage of EON's money is going to come from those who wander along to the cinema to watch a film, not those who are going to have a nice honey warmness inside when some past event or reference is made. If you make the films for the "fans", only the "fans" are going to want to see them. Bond is popular culture. Let it stay that way.

This is an excellent point Jim, and one that I agree with completely (that must be why it's "excellent" ). I say make another SPY WHO LOVED ME, not another LICENCE TO KILL.

[James Page]

....I say make another in the style of THUNDERBALL. Class, elegance, a good story, and some great action too.

=
J

[zencat]

James Page (05 Aug, 2001 09:14 p.m.):
One thing that is nagging at the cynics of this leak is that a "script" from Bond 20 was found in the canteen of Pinewood Studios some time ago. This was soon concluded to be a piece of fan-fiction but has yet to ripple to the surface outside of Pinewood and EON. Is this leak from that debunked script, or is genuine? Only time will tell...
J

Interesting point...

[Blue Eyes]

I have seen the script personally and I can tell you that it isn't the current script that is floating around.

[Blue Eyes]

That's an interesting thought Jim. Excuse my ignorance, but where there any 'ideas' or 'images' etc... from older Bond film in TLD?

[freemo]

I like little links to previous films, I think they make for a nice touch and there sould perhaps be more of them. But saying that I don't think theres a need for them to play a huge part in the movies plot, especially if they are from the early films.

[R]

Blue Eyes (08 Aug, 2001 12:28 a.m.):
That's an interesting thought Jim. Excuse my ignorance, but where there any 'ideas' or 'images' etc... from older Bond film in TLD?

Depends how deep you want to go...

There was the Aston Martin, which was a kind of nod back to previous Bond's. M, Q and general Gogol are all there but that could be said to be for the sake of continuity.

[Jim]

Not sure how relevant this message might be here, but there seems to be some desire to have some sort of "celebration" ideas running through the new film, because it's an anniversary etc.
The last notable anniversary summoned up The Living Daylights, a film without any notable weighty continuity points, and all the stronger for it. Forget the past. Forge to the future.

[Jim]

There's a danger of alienating the wider audience, those who really make EON money, those who wouldn't know a continuity reference if it hit them in the face, i.e the people who (god forbid) go to see a James Bond film to be entertained. There are more of them than there are of Bond fans who might be amused by such references. EON is a massively successful business because they know not to piss off the punter.
Example - The Phantom Menace; generally pretty awful and if you hadn't seen the first three films, completely inexplicable.
Example - Star Trek - always hated it but a continuity fest. Hard to enjoy if you're not in on the joke. Easier to switch off though.

This is the major problem I have with Benson's books (going a little off topic, but I'll be back soon, just you watch). He fills them with so many references that they just get in the way. Why is this? Some sort of insecurity, to convince the reader that they're reading James Bond? Courage, mon brave. Fleming did it very, very rarely. Fleming's books undoubtedly sold well. Benson....? Outside of the Bond fans, who buys them and reads them and enjoys them? They don't seem widely available, at least not on a bestseller scale.

The greater percentage of EON's money is going to come from those who wander along to the cinema to watch a film, not those who are going to have a nice honey warmness inside when some past event or reference is made.

I am aware that this is massively hypocritical and I'd be sitting there with a nice honey warmness, but I don't like sitting in cinemas on my own.

If you make the films for the "fans", only the "fans" are going to want to see them. Bond is popular culture. Let it stay that way.