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 can't wait to see how they make that scene and how it comes out in the movie and the whole movie.
Yes. But if you're really "working closely" (Logan's words in interviews), then it shouldn't really be a surprise when the draft is turned in. There's this narrative that's taking hold that Logan messed up. But did he? Or was everyone on board at least while it was still being written?
I also wonder if all the controversy with the script and Sony will add to Spectre's success?
MENDES: I thought I'd check in and see how things were going.
LOGAN: Great. I'm in the middle of writing the scene where Tanner is revealed as a traitor and he commits suicide as Bond watches.
MENDES: Super! Can't wait to read it.
Or?
LOGAN: Well, what did you think?
MENDES: I don't recall you mentioning anything about Tanner being a traitor and committing suicide as Bond watches.
LOGAN: Just a little notion I had. Are you sure I didn't mention it?
MENDES: Quite sure.
That over-simplifies things, but there's a big difference between the first scenario and the second.
You'd think somebody would have made some "John, how's it going? How much do you have written so far?" phone calls. Or, "Can you send me what you've written so far?" And maybe they did.
In this, it's clear the main theme of Spectre is a riff on the Edward Snowdon revelations concerning surveillance by the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community. Similar to how SF riffed off the Wikileaks thing with the list of under-cover agents (which then got quickly forgotten among the other theme: Bond Rises).
So, if that was the brief to Logan or indeed what was discussed with Mendes, it shouldn't have been too much of a surprise that he turned in a draft where someone inside MI6 was working 'in the shadows' to help along the Nine Eyes programme for SPECTRE. I wouldn't at all be surprised that Fiennes refusal to play the bad guy was what ultimately led to the major rewrites.
He certainly didn't care about little details such as "What's happening during any given moment during an action scene."
I think the dialogue was probably the strongest of the Craig era, all the Craig films bar a few miss steps is better than any of that with in the Pierce era.
Well in the leaks, the producers discussing the script write about the "hook" on at least two separate instances. And it is :
- Warning "mega spoiler" -
But IMPORTANT : these are discussions from the end of 2013/beginning of 2014. Already more than one year ago. And we know that in the last screenplay available, Ernst survives, while he died in the old ones. So they might have had a change of mind about all this.
Let Craig do 1or 2 more then continue with a new actor with the same MI6 team as nothing has changed, just like they used to. To reboot like all these other franchises does seem to do is just not a good idea. Unless the Idris Elba thing is on the cards and then you are talking reboot, no other option but I seriously hope that doesn't happen.
Good one. The film was so obviously circa 2008, not actually right off the back of the events of CR, unless everyone went forward two years in time.
Earth wind and rubbish. yawn. Olga looked real good though! There is that.
==fear of another re-boot IMO btw is a red herring. I cannot envision any scenario where an acutal reboot is needed.
First of all, I think its a virtual lock that Craig is back for at least one more film, if he wants it, maybe even two. I'm happy to have him, if they can keep the personal drama under control, and that seems to be whats coming in SP. ie Bond has his mojo for the whole film.
Although I prefer a younger Bond, in fact demand it when time to re-cast, I am not averse to an established Bond fully milking the role, BUT when it does come to recasting, go young again ie age 30.
Lets get some prime years out of these guys, like we did with Sean and George, the two originals.
New Bond can continue with the Craig history. Magic of cinema, and don't forget even though Craig was introduced rather aged in CR as new 007, it was in fact an orgins story.
New Bond can compress the Craig era as his origins. We can just overlook how old the actors appeared to be, and appeared is the operative word, as age was never established in any of the Craig films. Even old-dog was just experienced. Ok he was old too, but we can pretend. The whole old-dog thing was swept under the rug by end of SF anyway and apparently not a trace left in SP, which is a good thing.
Anyway Bond will continue in cinema long after we are all long dead. Magic of cinema requires that he be continually re-launched, not re-booted as Flemings perpetually dashing 30-something agent.
Totally agree on all points. They should indeed go young for the next Bond so we get at least 4-5 films out of him. It's also why Elba doesn't have a prayer of being the next Bond. He'll be 15 years too old once Craig leaves if they go for a young Bond. It's not his race that is the problem, it's his age.
I think that the post by James 007 Facebook Page a couple of weeks ago, the post From Solden to Q stage. I think that they're filming the ICE Q Restaurant. There's no way they shot a 6 page script interior of the ICE Q restaurant in 4 days and the exterior and Bond fighting the henchmen outside of the clinic...
Give your thoughts..