It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I would also like to mention that I believe there is nothing wrong with minor tweaks during filming or close to the start of filming, but a major rewrite during principal photography and in the couple of months leading up to the start of filming should be a big no-no.
EDIT: Obviously, I am talking about mainstream movies. Terrence Malick or David Lynch doesn't even need any screenplay to make a great film.
You do realize that when making movies, the script isnt completed months ahead to just lie on a table or sit on a harddrive for weeks or months untouched.....right? Its constantly tinkered with. Some pretty famous (and great overall) films had drastic last minute script changes. Look at all the what-ifs of this franchise in pre-production; Blofeld being a woman or black hardly shocks me considering some of the stuff they thought up in the past. (Bond ripping off portions of Die Hard style action for Daltons third, anyone?)
The fact you seemingly have your knickers in a twist because of leaked emails over this one particular film is whats astounding given that 1) This is just one film and these shenanigans and goings on behind the scenes are par for the course in movie making year after year on hundreds of productions and 2) Because they are leaks, for all you, I, all of us know, this could be the routine leading into every Bond production since bloody Dr. No of people throwing hissyfits, extreme ideas being tossed around and threats of quitting. Its called collaborative creative process combined with big Hollywood egos; everybody wants their say. They weeded through the crap, they got the script together and its on with the show.
But seriously, read more scripts. If this alarms you, go read through the different drafts leading up to '89 Batman and Batman Returns. Better yet, read up on Kevin Smith's time with Superman Lives; that producer gave Smith hell because he didnt want Superman to fly, he wanted the cape gone because he thought it was (in his own words) gay and wanted Supes to fight a giant spider just because he (the producer) admired spiders... and later he got his wish if youve seen Wild Wild West (same producer). And you think these people were nuts. Welcome to the nitty gritty of Hollywood politics.
You don't have to believe me when I say that Spectre had a very undesirable pre-production. Find the e-mails and read what they (Mendes, Broccoli and the Sony & MGM executives) said and how they felt.
I read the emails weeks back and compared to most behind the scenes stuff I shift through dealing with Hollywood, their thoughts and comments are mere childs play. As I said, for all we know this could be par for the course for every entry, it is a 50+ year old franchise running low on original ideas. We only have leaks from one film with absolutely nothing else to compare it to from earlier in this franchise besides publicity 'fluff' to make their working team and the movie look good. One film is all you have to base it on and for all we know, Royale, GoldenEye, hell even Goldfinger, could have been production hell. So to worry and say the production was in shambles is just pretty ridiculous. They've been in this game long enough, theyre professionals and have brought this franchise back from the brink of creative death several times. They know what theyre doing and pre-production squabbles don't tear my peace of mind one bit.
You don't like him, fine. Have you ever wondered why most casual moviegoers and film critics all agree that he is currently one of the best writers and one of the best directors of big budget cinema?
The general public prefer style over substance.
This review sums up my problems with Nolan. The guy can direct but his writing leaves much to be desired.
http://letterboxd.com/followtheblind/film/the-prestige/
Three things:
1. I'm guessing you mean pre-production.
2. For the umpteenth time, I am not worried at all. How could I be? I have already read the result of the script writing process. The screenplay is what it is.
3. Read the e-mail written by Amy Pascal on June 16th, the two e-mails Sam Mendes sent to Pascal on July 14th and the one Barbara Broccoli sent to Pascal on August 30th. Then tell me again that the pre-production wasn't in shambles during the summer...
That's the criticism that makes the least sense. Name one Hollywood blockbuster in the last 5 years that is less "style over substance" than Inception or Interstellar. If there is one think Nolan is great at, then it is giving substance to big budget movies. If there is one thing he is bad at, it's style.
And I'm not going to read that unnecessarily long opinion piece written by an internet troll about a movie I don't even like that much to begin with, and published on a New Zealand based website. I have better ways to spend my time.
The Avengers. A grand scope Superhero movie that's also an ensemble film. Every character is given realistic dialogue without feeling overdone or pretentious.
Please tell me that's a joke! I'm begging you!
I'll take any Marvel film over anything Nolan's put out in the last decade.
Ok, fair enogh. At least now I know your opinion about Nolan and Marvel. My opinion is that your opinion is ridiculous. Avengers is a movie aimed at teenagers and made to sell toys, nothing more. By the way, are you that Egg MacGuffin person from letterboxd?
Why is my opinion ridiculous? Because I don't eat up everything Nolan puts out? Who cares who the Avengers was aimed at? And no I'm not that Egg MacgGuffin guy. Please. Don't make laugh. I wish I could write like that. I'm just some schmuck from Ohio.
Just because Nolan gets all this praise doesn't mean he's untouchable to critics. I think he's overrated.
Are your "tastes" in movies so refined you have to put people down?
Short answer: yes.
Typical straw man argument... I certainly don't eat up everything Nolan directs. For example I find The Dark Knight vastly overrated. No, your opinion is ridiculous because you claim that The Avengers is less "style over substance" than Inception or Interstellar. The only thing The Avengers has is style.
Nolan doesn't come anywhere close to being as great as someone like David Lynch, but he is easily one of the best (if not THE best) director of big budget movies nowadays and directors like Joss Whedon are a joke compared to him.
Interstellar was pretty but unmemorable. TDKR was a mess compared to TDK and crapped all over the character and drive of Batman and his legacy. His smaller films were much better when he wasnt going for huge epics. He's nowhere near right for Bond.
- Considering that is your biggest gripe, yes, pre-production. And CR wasnt a mess that youre aware of. Out of many drafts I'm sure, not all were explicitly leaked compared with now, thus my previous point.
- For the umpteenth time, youve been rambling on about how everything is/was in shambles and making normal Hollywood politics out to be some sort of scandal/tragedy averted. Everyone bickers and argues about everything in Hollywood, no one in power is sane. They get there from either inheritance or being out of their minds.
- I told you I read the emails. Pure childs play, Hollywood dramatics. This is what goes on daily when not being fluffed up for the press. Again, I say to you welcome to the 'real' Hollywood creative machine. Glad you finally saw under the veil. These movies that you speak of that have virtually no scripting issues are ultimately are raritety and are in the minority. Re-writes, act changes, character changes, even location changes late or early in the process happens. Hell, even actors quit or drop dead. You pick up the pieces and shuffle on.
Many great and now classic films have had major re-writes during production, for example, just off the top of my head, Casablanca or The Big Sleep, Apocalypse Now, Jaws etc. Other films have had major re-shoots - Back To the Future actually re-cast their lead actor after 2 weeks shooting - And Mendes was unhappy with the more broad comic tone the studio was after for American Beauty and after a week of shooting Mendes bravely - remember he was a first time feature film director - went to the studio and requested they let him re-shoot everything and let him adjust the tone. His wishes, despite the added costs and time, were granted. The finished result won Best Film Oscar.
The point I'm making is that films strive to be the best they can be, no one ever sets out to make a sub-standard film on purpose, so everyone works hard to get the best results. Big tent-pole release movies like Bond have added pressures, not just high audience expectation, but fixed release dates and huge amounts of money at stake, so to say making script changes - more than minor changes - in actual production should be, as you say, a "big no-no", is quite frankly pretty naive. All that matters is the final result. That's what people remember.
You referring to the pre-production issues of Spectre as "Hollywood politics" shows that you either have no idea what "Hollywood politics" means or you have only read a portion of the e-mails. There wasn't much bickering between the executives, the producers and Mendes during the pre-production of the movie. The problems were of a completely different nature.
@ColonelSun All that doesn't change the fact that the script of Spectre was still a mess at the time when it should have been pretty much finished. And don't tell me it's OK that they had all the major locations locked in at the time when they had still no idea what to do with Blofeld and whether the character should be black or white and a man or a woman.
There is nothing naive about saying that making script changes in actual production should be a "big no-no". If Nolan can manage to write scripts he is satisfied with on time 6 times in 10 years, then the Bond team should be able to deliver screenplays on time too. You are talking about rewriting the script in the last minute or even during production just to make a movie better. In the case of Spectre we are talking about them rewriting the script in the last minute becasue they were incompetent to produce a script on time. Big difference.
This. Not to mention Social Network, Bastards and Inception arent coming off the backs of a 50 year old franchise with tons of already used and trampled ideas, theyre Oscar bait flicks and Bond is pure action cheese meant as escapism and not to make a point, make you think or view your fellow man or history of man. Those flicks are on an entirely different artistic level. Its like comparing Die Hard to Titanic.
Anyway, back to Spectre. From what I'm picking up on this forum it seems the re-writes have been very positive and will lead to a better film. Now what can be wrong with that?
Well aren't you full of yourself Mr. Condescending. I don't dislike all Nolan's films. I enjoy Batman Begins but that's about it. The Avengers is an action ensemble piece directed at fans of the material with realistic dialogue and not some pseudo sophisticated expository speeches Nolan cooks up
It's not a "strawman" argument. I answered your questions and asked you some in return. That's how a discussion works. That review I put up was more than hater backlash. It addressed real criticisms over Nolan's film style. I don't like his formula. Most of his movies don't do it for me. And I don't think he's good enough for Bond.
Calm down and take a deep breath. Why do you need to become agitated when people discuss the development of the movie in detail? Do you hate posts longer than two sentences or what?
lol Sorry to have confused you, I was using those 3 examples to make a point. That point being, Bastards and the other 2 films had no strict schedule, literally years of time devoted to forming ideas, crafting drafts, putting a script together. Bond has what, a year tops, maybe less depending on when they begin? They are almost always written under the harsh conditions and its relatively nothing new considering how many ideas are probably scratched and rewrites are needed in that timeframe probably since Diamonds Are Forever, I'd imagine, when they started drifting from the source film by film.
Action films, particularly franchises, are an entirely different beast compared to the creative proccess of standalone flcks. Films involving bi or tri annual franchises are a tough business.
Adrian Turner, a British film critic and historian, did exactly that for his 1998 book Adrian Turner on Goldfinger. Topics are organized alphabetically. Under "S" is Screenplay and Turner provides a lengthy summary of the various Goldfinger scripts by Maibaum and Paul Dehn.
Also, quotes from various Maibaum memos are spread throughout the book.
Doesn't mean he's the best idea for a Bond film. For a Bond film there's a lot of "rules" you have to follow and I don't think Nolan would be very happy sticking to those rules.
LOL.
Dude... Please stop...