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
EDIT : Actually, I talk about the French law only ! And even then it's only "IMO"
Wrong, its the content thats protected and even if thats been transfer to new material in this case an article thats then shared is still sharing the property. For example I cant rerecord the beatles back catalog and share it without permission. By posting it you are culpable in sharing that information with others without consent.
Anyway, what I don't like about the general thrust of this story, is that the backstory is again personal for Bond, or more to the point for Oberhauser.
We didn't need this drama.
Oberhauser murdering his dad and forming Spectre idea, could have been done quite well, minus having a side vendetta against Bond. Any number of reasons could have been cooked up for son murdering dad.
Spectre could still have been the force behind Quantum and the events of the first three films, but minus any personal interest in Bond.
But Spectre antipathy towards Bond would come anyway, after Bond blew up two of their big schemes, at both Royale and in Bolivia.
Spectre-boss wouldn't need daddy issues to have it in for Bond, just as Spectre, in the original films, didn't waste any time exacting revenge on Bond, in FRWL.
Bond even had to fake his own death by #5 film, to get them off his back.
In Fleming's story, Dexter Smythe murders Hans Oberhauser. It's Bond that later takes a personal interest, when he discovers that his old ski instrutor, mentor, was in fact murdered.
This would have been a better angle IMO, that upon discovery of the body of Hans, Bond takes an interest in the case, with this road leading him to Franz/Blofeld and Spectre, rather than Fleming's Dexter Smythe.
This tact would have been more consistent with the Fleming narrative. It only ups the ante on the villainy of the villain, ie Blofeld versus the rather tame by comparison, Smythe.
Mind you I don't think we are real clear on what story is actually being filmed. Maybe the Franz daddy issues angle has been minimized, because if it isn't, it kinda cheapens and makes petty Spectre, which is worthy of much loftier villainy.
The descriptions weren't even mine, they were in this article:
http://gawker.com/new-bond-script-leaks-execs-scrambling-to-fix-awful-en-1670479885
If in doubt, pm @dimi, like he said to do in his post. Simple.
I know it's just a link to the gawker article? When did I say it wasn't?
Why not make Kincaid be Blofeld. Wouldn't that have been simpler, but just as nonsensical?
I hope Logan wasn't paid for his work.
I'm sure Mendes has fixed this up since he seemed superconfident last week, as did Craig, but I think they need to seriously consider who they use for scriptwriting going forward, and ensure they provide clear guidelines on how much credibility can be stretched, or how far the plot can be moved forward without some kind of high level oversight review by the team.
Script fixups into November when they've had 3 years smacks of a screwup if we're being honest, no matter how you slice or dice it.
One huge character whose making his grand entrance into the modern Bond-era with three different names in one film is definitely too much on it's own.
Love the tagged bit. I was hoping that would stay in. I wonder who's going to play her.
My apologies, was meant to say the opposite, that was cut.
Anyway third act seems to be improved from what Gawker reported on - and it looks to possibly be the same in that Dec 1 version that I mentioned earlier. Now question is whether Mendes will be able to elevate this material well so it works on screen
Oh drat....well hopefully there's a rethink during production. Here's to hoping..
I don't know really, I think it's about time we at least put the tip of our toes into the 'Bond is an orphan' pool of water. After Skyfall it seems to me the right time, we've started getting a bit personal with Bond. He's no longer just a number. He never was actually, but Bond's past has been a huge mystery from Dr. No to Quantum of Solace.
Bond doesn't need his past explained or fleshed out in every single detail. I think his past being a mystery is very appealing. I'm one of those people who don't want everything spelled out. I want to thing for myself and fill things in. It allows for creative freedom. Like me thinking the DB5 in Skyfall is the same one in CR.
@OberhauserBlofeld - this, with the approach Mendes took with Skyfall I'm looking forward to what he does here. What may sound iffy on paper (at least this new outline sounds pretty good to me) could be elevated for the screen
I meant more of a romantic Bond girl.
I too never want it fully explaining, it would destroy the mystery of 007, but I don't see any harm in at least making events of his childhood known to us, which will in turn reveal small things about his past.
Why do we need to know about his childhood? It's such a mundane part of the character. We have the Young Bond books for that. We don't need to see that in film.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/complicated-sony-ethics
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/variety-cnn-examine-journalistic-issues-with-sony-hack/
If a fan does not want to learn about what has been exposed, that is his/her right and prerrogative. That's why I agree with specific threads being created for spoiler material and where discussion of the leaks can take place, like this very one. Fans have a right to open discussion on this thread and this thread only, and that is how it should be. Fans who don't want to learn of the leaks should not visit this thread.
Now, onto the larger conversation about whether we should in fact be discussing what has been leaked. Absolutely we should, as far as I'm concerned, if we so choose, and as long as it's in a dedicated thread like this. We should not be prevented from discussing this, nor should anyone else, as long as it does not spoil it for other fans. There are no ethical considerations for fans on this matter as far as I'm concerned, apart from respecting the views of other fans.
This information is now public, whether we like it or not. If Sony and others did not want this information out in the public domain, they should have done more to prevent it. Now it is out there, and they will have to deal with it, as will EON. Will it impact SPECTRE's box office performance? Maybe, but I can assure you, the film will live or die more on how good it is and how well the actors act in it rather than whether its script has been leaked and read by all concerned. Of that I can assure you. The Titanic story is well known, and yet that movie is one of the highest grossing of all time.
The leaks have exposed the attitudes of some of entertainment's most powerful people. I'm referring in particular to Scott Rudin, who has disgraced himself. These are not personal emails, but rather, work emails. His comments in those leaked emails are not worthy of someone who is paid the kind of money he is paid. It is not acceptable. If he has been embarrased, all the better. Maybe he will be more careful in the future before passing comments on actresses or presidents...
Once it's public, we should be able to discuss it, in dedicated threads. There is nothing unethical about that at all as these are not personal emails, but rather work emails. If the information is that precious, don't let it leak. I agree that posting links is not ethical however as the original source information should not be further disseminated.
If Sony's lawyers have another view, perhaps they should spend more time going after the hackers and other parties who are posting links rather than threatening fans and the like. These are multi-million $$ corporations with very highly paid lawyers, executives and computer people who are protecting multi-million $$ franchises. They have not done a good job protecting their asset. I suggest that be where they focus their efforts.
That's my view and I'm sticking with it.
@Gustav_Graves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BuzzFeed#Controversy