No Time To Die: Production Diary

12682692712732742507

Comments

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I say "no" to Rupert Friend, solely because I see his face and can't think of anything but that horrible 'Hitman' movie that I got maybe 10 minutes into before turning it off.

    I haven't seen the second Hitman film, but the trailer for it put me off. Why can't they get Agent 47 right? :-??
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited June 2016 Posts: 9,117
    dinovelvet wrote: »
    If you've seen Rupert Friend in anything you'll know he'd make a good Bond.

    I've seen Hitman and Homeland and I think he'd be terrible.

    Here's a pretty badly editted (but entertaining and interesting) Homeland montage of him. He can move the part without even speaking.


    Just walking around holding a gun near your face does not make you a credible actor to play Bond.

    Comes across as a poor man's Gerard Butler or an even poorer man's Craig Fairbrass. Awful.
  • DoctorKaufmannDoctorKaufmann Can shoot you from Stuttgart and still make it look like suicide.
    Posts: 1,261
    13528538_1153562561369754_3661691592278423663_o.jpg
  • Posts: 1,631
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I say "no" to Rupert Friend, solely because I see his face and can't think of anything but that horrible 'Hitman' movie that I got maybe 10 minutes into before turning it off.

    I haven't seen the second Hitman film, but the trailer for it put me off. Why can't they get Agent 47 right? :-??

    Because Hollywood isn't interested in faithfully adapting the source material for the screen. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there wasn't a vault of screenplays somewhere in LA that they delve into every so often and pull one out that's close enough to whatever the hottest video game is at the moment and then some minimal work is put into tailoring it for the existing property and into production it goes. Some of these game adaptations are so far off that this seems to be the only way that some of them could possibly be put together.

    As for the two actors who have played Agent 47, I don't think that there's been anything wrong with them. Both Olyphant and Friend are good actors. Sometimes, and this is often the case in video game films, the material is too poor for anyone to overcome.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @MajorDSmythe, it wouldn't be that tough to do, I just wish someone cared enough to make a proper adaptation of it.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    @Creasy47 this is the closest we'll probably get.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    After the Brexit vote, EON are probably putting together a Bond 25 script that opens with Bond angrily brutalizing two Leave voters in a dirty bathroom stall (CR callback) following the announcement, while the rest of the film follows him out running M and his 00 agents who are trying to reign him in as he heads for France in a fit of embarrassment. Not exactly the swan song film I wanted Dan going out on, but I'll take it.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 5,745
    James Bond 007
    in Brexit In The Morning
    in Brexit For Dinner
    in For Queen And Union
    in Fear And Loathing In Britain
    in Leave Of Balance
    in The Brexit Referendum
    in Article 50

    You know, the last two are rather catchy.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Nice, @JWESTBROOK. For a super long title, how about When All Else Leaves, Death Remains?
  • Posts: 2,402
    I just had a brilliant, brilliant Bond movie come to my mind, so, as always happens with such things... I've started writing it. It'd never become Bond 25 but the idea is so goddamn genius.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I just had a brilliant, brilliant Bond movie come to my mind, so, as always happens with such things... I've started writing it. It'd never become Bond 25 but the idea is so goddamn genius.
    Care to share with us, old chap?
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 5,767
    dalton wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I say "no" to Rupert Friend, solely because I see his face and can't think of anything but that horrible 'Hitman' movie that I got maybe 10 minutes into before turning it off.

    I haven't seen the second Hitman film, but the trailer for it put me off. Why can't they get Agent 47 right? :-??

    Because Hollywood isn't interested in faithfully adapting the source material for the screen. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there wasn't a vault of screenplays somewhere in LA that they delve into every so often and pull one out that's close enough to whatever the hottest video game is at the moment and then some minimal work is put into tailoring it for the existing property and into production it goes. Some of these game adaptations are so far off that this seems to be the only way that some of them could possibly be put together.

    As for the two actors who have played Agent 47, I don't think that there's been anything wrong with them. Both Olyphant and Friend are good actors. Sometimes, and this is often the case in video game films, the material is too poor for anyone to overcome.
    I still firmly hold the opinion that at least the train action scene from Sherlock Homes A Game of Shadows was lifted from a not-realised Wild Wild West sequel.

  • Posts: 1,631
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I say "no" to Rupert Friend, solely because I see his face and can't think of anything but that horrible 'Hitman' movie that I got maybe 10 minutes into before turning it off.

    I haven't seen the second Hitman film, but the trailer for it put me off. Why can't they get Agent 47 right? :-??

    Because Hollywood isn't interested in faithfully adapting the source material for the screen. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if there wasn't a vault of screenplays somewhere in LA that they delve into every so often and pull one out that's close enough to whatever the hottest video game is at the moment and then some minimal work is put into tailoring it for the existing property and into production it goes. Some of these game adaptations are so far off that this seems to be the only way that some of them could possibly be put together.

    As for the two actors who have played Agent 47, I don't think that there's been anything wrong with them. Both Olyphant and Friend are good actors. Sometimes, and this is often the case in video game films, the material is too poor for anyone to overcome.
    I still firmly hold the opinion that at least the train action scene from Sherlock Homes A Game of Shadows was lifted from a not-realised Wild Wild West sequel.

    Wouldn't surprise me. Speaking of Wild Wild West, wasn't the massive spider towards the end of that film itself lifted from Kevin Smith's aborted Superman Lives?
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    I want to log off.
    Wash you hands after please.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Always.
  • Posts: 2,402
    I just had a brilliant, brilliant Bond movie come to my mind, so, as always happens with such things... I've started writing it. It'd never become Bond 25 but the idea is so goddamn genius.
    Care to share with us, old chap?

    The film itself is not necessarily groundbreaking as cinema, but in the context of Bond I would say it is. It would ideally be the first film for a new Bond. It would take someone of Craig's calibre to sell it right out of the gate.

    Actually first off here's the teaser trailer. Roughly. The impact of this trailer would be increased if we didn't know yet who our new James Bond is.

    We're in M's office. "Six agents dead," the trailer begins. Quick couple shots of this; an assignment gone wrong perhaps an agent getting shot, another's car exploding. M is addressing, presumably, Bond. "All done by a vicious traitor."

    We cut to a rather menacing villain type. Shaved head, doing violent, brutal stuff. I'm thinking we see him snap someone's neck in a bare knuckle fight or something. Just something that's really f---ed. This is only a teaser trailer but I want it to establish quickly that this is not your grandma's Bond movie. Something with an edge so hard that the Craig films might as well be made of Jell-O.

    We cut between our presumptive new James Bond and our presumptive villain, both in action, a few times, and also the gunbarrel which proceeds a bit further each time we see it. But Bond in the gunbarrel is silhouetted, we cannot see his face. The agent is addressed as "007". Our agent asks something like "What's his name?" Before we cut once more to our "villian", who states determinedly:

    "Bond. James Bond."

    BANG! The gunbarrel completes, and the silhouette clears to reveal our new James Bond... the villain, now with a full head of hair. /trailer

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Put the pitchforks down! James Bond is NOT actually the villain! He didn't kill those agents! He has been set up Mission:Impossible style in our pre-credits sequence.

    Now. Bond going rogue has happened before. LTK and QoS. But. Has he ever been branded, truly, a traitor? Has he ever been condemned a la Alec Trevelyan, had his codename stripped and given to another agent? No.

    Bond goes on the run, changes his appearance, and integrates himself into the criminal underworld to find the person who set him up, bring him to justice, and clear his name. He's sharing the screentime with the new 007, who is on Bond's trail but who also ultimately uncovers Bond's innocence and works alongside him to bring the REAL villain to justice. There are elements of LTK in there but not to the extent that this film pushes. The implication is that Bond has lost himself in this world for weeks, if not months.

    Now, spoiler alert, but to assuage everyone's fears: the new 007 does not remain 007. Once Bond wins, he gets his codename and licence to kill restored, and the new 007 becomes 006 or 009 or something. I like 006. I even like maybe having his name be Alec Trevelyan. Not because he's going to turn traitor in a later film; purely as a fun throwback to Bond fans. This would be a total reboot of the character, a younger agent, sort of a reflection of Bond's younger self. There's the possibility for him to appear in future films as a cameo or supporting character, but it's not necessary. He is sort of the deuteragonist with Bond in this one, as the film is as much about Bond taking down the villain as it is Trevelyan pursuing and investigating Bond.

    This is all a very rough idea still, as it all sort of came to me at once. But I actually really, really like what I've got in my head so far.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2016 Posts: 40,959
    Lots of detail, but personally I'm burnt out on Bond going rogue/not being trusted/clearing his name or proving himself, it's been prevalent in the last five Bond installments. I want to see M trust Bond completely - no smart blood or tracking Bond or wondering if he's rogue, just 007 doing what he does best.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Lots of detail, but personally I'm burnt out on Bond going rogue/not being trusted/clearing his name or proving himself, it's been prevalent in the last five Bond installments. I want to see M trust Bond completely - no smart blood or tracking Bond or wondering if he's rogue, just 007 doing what he does best.

    This is why...

    A: it shouldn't be for several films
    B: It should be a new Bond's first film, after one or two tenures where he's gone on several adventures, maybe even put Blofeld behind him. Where he's given and lost for years saving the world, and now it's not entirely unfeasible for him to turn traitor and snap

    But I also agree with your point
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    I'm just not a fan of the idea, personally, suppose it doesn't mean it couldn't be executed properly, though. I just find that to be out of character for 007, but then again, out of character/inconsistent ideas are sort of commonplace in the series now; that's why M has so many trust issues with Bond, I suppose. I miss the days when no matter how hard it may have been to believe or trust Bond, M always went out of his way to have his back, whatever it took to get the job done.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm just not a fan of the idea, personally, suppose it doesn't mean it couldn't be executed properly, though. I just find that to be out of character for 007, but then again, out of character/inconsistent ideas are sort of commonplace in the series now; that's why M has so many trust issues with Bond, I suppose. I miss the days when no matter how hard it may have been to believe or trust Bond, M always went out of his way to have his back, whatever it took to get the job done.

    I should elaborate.

    Craig's Bond appears to have a self-contained narrative. Whether he does one more or not. That would mean his adventures would be a non-factor. We'd be back to the days of the first 20 films. A sense of continuity in the notion that this character has been on all of his past adventures, but not a specific "beginning" and "end" per se. This would be the first film in this timeline where he's gone rogue at all. I didn't specify this, but M also has extreme doubts about Bond being a traitor. He assigns Trevelyan with taking Bond down second; investigating him and whether or not he truly is a traitor first.
  • Posts: 5,767
    I just had a brilliant, brilliant Bond movie come to my mind, so, as always happens with such things... I've started writing it. It'd never become Bond 25 but the idea is so goddamn genius.
    Care to share with us, old chap?

    The film itself is not necessarily groundbreaking as cinema, but in the context of Bond I would say it is. It would ideally be the first film for a new Bond. It would take someone of Craig's calibre to sell it right out of the gate.

    Actually first off here's the teaser trailer. Roughly. The impact of this trailer would be increased if we didn't know yet who our new James Bond is.

    We're in M's office. "Six agents dead," the trailer begins. Quick couple shots of this; an assignment gone wrong perhaps an agent getting shot, another's car exploding. M is addressing, presumably, Bond. "All done by a vicious traitor."

    We cut to a rather menacing villain type. Shaved head, doing violent, brutal stuff. I'm thinking we see him snap someone's neck in a bare knuckle fight or something. Just something that's really f---ed. This is only a teaser trailer but I want it to establish quickly that this is not your grandma's Bond movie. Something with an edge so hard that the Craig films might as well be made of Jell-O.

    We cut between our presumptive new James Bond and our presumptive villain, both in action, a few times, and also the gunbarrel which proceeds a bit further each time we see it. But Bond in the gunbarrel is silhouetted, we cannot see his face. The agent is addressed as "007". Our agent asks something like "What's his name?" Before we cut once more to our "villian", who states determinedly:

    "Bond. James Bond."

    BANG! The gunbarrel completes, and the silhouette clears to reveal our new James Bond... the villain, now with a full head of hair. /trailer

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Put the pitchforks down! James Bond is NOT actually the villain! He didn't kill those agents! He has been set up Mission:Impossible style in our pre-credits sequence.

    Now. Bond going rogue has happened before. LTK and QoS. But. Has he ever been branded, truly, a traitor? Has he ever been condemned a la Alec Trevelyan, had his codename stripped and given to another agent? No.

    Bond goes on the run, changes his appearance, and integrates himself into the criminal underworld to find the person who set him up, bring him to justice, and clear his name. He's sharing the screentime with the new 007, who is on Bond's trail but who also ultimately uncovers Bond's innocence and works alongside him to bring the REAL villain to justice. There are elements of LTK in there but not to the extent that this film pushes. The implication is that Bond has lost himself in this world for weeks, if not months.

    Now, spoiler alert, but to assuage everyone's fears: the new 007 does not remain 007. Once Bond wins, he gets his codename and licence to kill restored, and the new 007 becomes 006 or 009 or something. I like 006. I even like maybe having his name be Alec Trevelyan. Not because he's going to turn traitor in a later film; purely as a fun throwback to Bond fans. This would be a total reboot of the character, a younger agent, sort of a reflection of Bond's younger self. There's the possibility for him to appear in future films as a cameo or supporting character, but it's not necessary. He is sort of the deuteragonist with Bond in this one, as the film is as much about Bond taking down the villain as it is Trevelyan pursuing and investigating Bond.

    This is all a very rough idea still, as it all sort of came to me at once. But I actually really, really like what I've got in my head so far.
    I wanted to stop right after "six agents dead". But because you said it´s brilliant brilliant and groundbreaking in the context of Bond, I continued.
    WTF, @StirredNotShaken, are you DisneyBond whateverhisname in disguise?

  • Posts: 2,402
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I just had a brilliant, brilliant Bond movie come to my mind, so, as always happens with such things... I've started writing it. It'd never become Bond 25 but the idea is so goddamn genius.
    Care to share with us, old chap?

    The film itself is not necessarily groundbreaking as cinema, but in the context of Bond I would say it is. It would ideally be the first film for a new Bond. It would take someone of Craig's calibre to sell it right out of the gate.

    Actually first off here's the teaser trailer. Roughly. The impact of this trailer would be increased if we didn't know yet who our new James Bond is.

    We're in M's office. "Six agents dead," the trailer begins. Quick couple shots of this; an assignment gone wrong perhaps an agent getting shot, another's car exploding. M is addressing, presumably, Bond. "All done by a vicious traitor."

    We cut to a rather menacing villain type. Shaved head, doing violent, brutal stuff. I'm thinking we see him snap someone's neck in a bare knuckle fight or something. Just something that's really f---ed. This is only a teaser trailer but I want it to establish quickly that this is not your grandma's Bond movie. Something with an edge so hard that the Craig films might as well be made of Jell-O.

    We cut between our presumptive new James Bond and our presumptive villain, both in action, a few times, and also the gunbarrel which proceeds a bit further each time we see it. But Bond in the gunbarrel is silhouetted, we cannot see his face. The agent is addressed as "007". Our agent asks something like "What's his name?" Before we cut once more to our "villian", who states determinedly:

    "Bond. James Bond."

    BANG! The gunbarrel completes, and the silhouette clears to reveal our new James Bond... the villain, now with a full head of hair. /trailer

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa! Put the pitchforks down! James Bond is NOT actually the villain! He didn't kill those agents! He has been set up Mission:Impossible style in our pre-credits sequence.

    Now. Bond going rogue has happened before. LTK and QoS. But. Has he ever been branded, truly, a traitor? Has he ever been condemned a la Alec Trevelyan, had his codename stripped and given to another agent? No.

    Bond goes on the run, changes his appearance, and integrates himself into the criminal underworld to find the person who set him up, bring him to justice, and clear his name. He's sharing the screentime with the new 007, who is on Bond's trail but who also ultimately uncovers Bond's innocence and works alongside him to bring the REAL villain to justice. There are elements of LTK in there but not to the extent that this film pushes. The implication is that Bond has lost himself in this world for weeks, if not months.

    Now, spoiler alert, but to assuage everyone's fears: the new 007 does not remain 007. Once Bond wins, he gets his codename and licence to kill restored, and the new 007 becomes 006 or 009 or something. I like 006. I even like maybe having his name be Alec Trevelyan. Not because he's going to turn traitor in a later film; purely as a fun throwback to Bond fans. This would be a total reboot of the character, a younger agent, sort of a reflection of Bond's younger self. There's the possibility for him to appear in future films as a cameo or supporting character, but it's not necessary. He is sort of the deuteragonist with Bond in this one, as the film is as much about Bond taking down the villain as it is Trevelyan pursuing and investigating Bond.

    This is all a very rough idea still, as it all sort of came to me at once. But I actually really, really like what I've got in my head so far.
    I wanted to stop right after "six agents dead". But because you said it´s brilliant brilliant and groundbreaking in the context of Bond, I continued.
    WTF, @StirredNotShaken, are you DisneyBond whateverhisname in disguise?

    Excuse me? I've been a member here since you were getting your arse wiped. I've had my bouts of inactivity but I'll thank you to avoid comparing me to, of all people, Disney. Are you a troll hiding in plain sight? Oh right, you are.
  • Posts: 2,402
    Now that we've both gotten our jabs out of the way, would you like to actually have a productive discussion about this?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,276
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm just not a fan of the idea, personally, suppose it doesn't mean it couldn't be executed properly, though. I just find that to be out of character for 007, but then again, out of character/inconsistent ideas are sort of commonplace in the series now; that's why M has so many trust issues with Bond, I suppose. I miss the days when no matter how hard it may have been to believe or trust Bond, M always went out of his way to have his back, whatever it took to get the job done.

    I should elaborate.

    Craig's Bond appears to have a self-contained narrative. Whether he does one more or not. That would mean his adventures would be a non-factor. We'd be back to the days of the first 20 films. A sense of continuity in the notion that this character has been on all of his past adventures, but not a specific "beginning" and "end" per se. This would be the first film in this timeline where he's gone rogue at all. I didn't specify this, but M also has extreme doubts about Bond being a traitor. He assigns Trevelyan with taking Bond down second; investigating him and whether or not he truly is a traitor first.

    Craig really needs two more films to do the novelistic YOLT/TMWTGG arc justice. He is the perfect person for that job. Sadly, it probably won't happen.

    I like the Rupert Friend idea a lot.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 12,837
    I love the idea @StirredNotShaken. Sounds like a cool inventive way to show Bond's resourcefulness, I'm surprised we haven't had Bond being set up as a story before actually. My only real issue with it is the new 007 being called Alec Trevalayn. I'd nix that. I'm against rebooting one off characters (the only scenario I'd accept is if it was a Fleming character and they were doing a new, more faithful adaptation of that novel).

    I like the idea of the new 007 mirroring Bond's younger self. To really sell this I think you'd need a rugged, middle aged sort of actor. Maybe even hint at the Blofeld/Tracy stuff in conversation (since it's a reboot you could incorporate that as part of his backstory), to show that he's a more seasoned agent, especially compared to the more idealistic younger guy.
  • Posts: 1,631
    echo wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm just not a fan of the idea, personally, suppose it doesn't mean it couldn't be executed properly, though. I just find that to be out of character for 007, but then again, out of character/inconsistent ideas are sort of commonplace in the series now; that's why M has so many trust issues with Bond, I suppose. I miss the days when no matter how hard it may have been to believe or trust Bond, M always went out of his way to have his back, whatever it took to get the job done.

    I should elaborate.

    Craig's Bond appears to have a self-contained narrative. Whether he does one more or not. That would mean his adventures would be a non-factor. We'd be back to the days of the first 20 films. A sense of continuity in the notion that this character has been on all of his past adventures, but not a specific "beginning" and "end" per se. This would be the first film in this timeline where he's gone rogue at all. I didn't specify this, but M also has extreme doubts about Bond being a traitor. He assigns Trevelyan with taking Bond down second; investigating him and whether or not he truly is a traitor first.

    Craig really needs two more films to do the novelistic YOLT/TMWTGG arc justice. He is the perfect person for that job. Sadly, it probably won't happen.

    I agree to an extent. I think that if Spectre had really nailed what it was trying to be, which was on some level some kind of a modern update of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, then I'd be all in favor of seeing Craig continue on for You Only Live Twice and The Man With the Golden Gun. But, with SP being the film that it is, I don't really feel as though this era has earned the YOLT storyline, and I'd honestly fear how poorly it would turn out given the level of writing we've seen from the franchise under the watch of the current regime. There's no doubt they'd have top-level talent in front of the camera and in the director's and cinematographer's chairs, but without the writing, it's all for nothing.

    I like the Rupert Friend idea a lot.

    Welcome to the club. :)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    @StirredNotShaken, anything that could resuscitate the ludicrous 'codename' theory wouldn't work for me. I like the 'six agents dead' idea, but a 'new man' as 007 for a portion of the film is not my cup of tea, nor is a reboot of Trevelyan as 006.

    Bond set up and having to fend for himself is interesting, but as others have said, is a bit close to the 'rogue' scenario which has been overused.

    Perhaps a compromise may be to have him sent by M to infiltrate the criminal underworld intentionally, in order to get close to a supervillain, rather than being 'set up'.

    PS: I think there is a thread specifically for B25 ideas:

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/13322/realistic-serious-story-ideas-for-bond-25-to-be-used-by-eon-productions-ltd#latest
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 5,767
    Now that we've both gotten our jabs out of the way, would you like to actually have a productive discussion about this?
    Actually not, because I´m still too much in shock that such an honored long-time member comes up with yet another scenario involving betrayal and internal confusion. If MI6 is more busy combing out lice than protecting Queen and country, then I don´t care what becomes of James Bond. Literally, because it doesn´t grab me emotionally.
    Let alone that the beginning you described above reads more like a Jason Statham flic than a Bond film.






    dalton wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm just not a fan of the idea, personally, suppose it doesn't mean it couldn't be executed properly, though. I just find that to be out of character for 007, but then again, out of character/inconsistent ideas are sort of commonplace in the series now; that's why M has so many trust issues with Bond, I suppose. I miss the days when no matter how hard it may have been to believe or trust Bond, M always went out of his way to have his back, whatever it took to get the job done.

    I should elaborate.

    Craig's Bond appears to have a self-contained narrative. Whether he does one more or not. That would mean his adventures would be a non-factor. We'd be back to the days of the first 20 films. A sense of continuity in the notion that this character has been on all of his past adventures, but not a specific "beginning" and "end" per se. This would be the first film in this timeline where he's gone rogue at all. I didn't specify this, but M also has extreme doubts about Bond being a traitor. He assigns Trevelyan with taking Bond down second; investigating him and whether or not he truly is a traitor first.

    Craig really needs two more films to do the novelistic YOLT/TMWTGG arc justice. He is the perfect person for that job. Sadly, it probably won't happen.

    I agree to an extent. I think that if Spectre had really nailed what it was trying to be, which was on some level some kind of a modern update of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, then I'd be all in favor of seeing Craig continue on for You Only Live Twice and The Man With the Golden Gun. But, with SP being the film that it is, I don't really feel as though this era has earned the YOLT storyline, and I'd honestly fear how poorly it would turn out given the level of writing we've seen from the franchise under the watch of the current regime. There's no doubt they'd have top-level talent in front of the camera and in the director's and cinematographer's chairs, but without the writing, it's all for nothing.
    I find the assumption that SP somehow tried to be like OHMSS quite unfounded. And given the history of much more entertaining Bond films with no better scripts, I find it unjustified to blame the writers more than the director and producers.

  • edited June 2016 Posts: 1,631
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find the assumption that SP somehow tried to be like OHMSS quite unfounded. And given the history of much more entertaining Bond films with no better scripts, I find it unjustified to blame the writers more than the director and producers.

    Not saying that it was trying to be a direct remake or anything, but they were clearly trying to set Madeleine up as a Tracy-like figure. Her background is similar, Bond makes a deal with her criminal father to keep an eye on her (marriage in OHMSS, protection in SP), the two fall in love, which is expressed after she saves Bond in a critical moment (car chase in OHMSS, Hinx fight and torture sequence in SP), and so on.

    The rest of it, of course, isn't an OHMSS remake, but the dynamic between Bond and Madeleine is meant to mirror Bond and Tracy, especially given the "We have all the time in the world" line that was cut from the end of the film.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 5,767
    dalton wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    I find the assumption that SP somehow tried to be like OHMSS quite unfounded. And given the history of much more entertaining Bond films with no better scripts, I find it unjustified to blame the writers more than the director and producers.

    Not saying that it was trying to be a direct remake or anything, but they were clearly trying to set Madeleine up as a Tracy-like figure. Her background is similar, Bond makes a deal with her criminal father to keep an eye on her (marriage in OHMSS, protection in SP), the two fall in love, which is expressed after she saves Bond in a critical moment (car chase in OHMSS, Hinx fight and torture sequence in SP), and so on.

    The rest of it, of course, isn't an OHMSS remake, but the dynamic between Bond and Madeleine is meant to mirror Bond and Tracy, especially given the "We have all the time in the world" line that was cut from the end of the film.
    I donßt see that intention anywhere in the whole film. Those elements you mention are used in the same recycling way countless other elements have been re-used throughout Bond film history. And Bond driving off with Madeleine in the end is the standart Bond-gets-the-girl ending, flavored Craig-style and rogue-Bond style. It doesn´t indicate to me in any way that Bond won´t be back next time.



    Birdleson wrote: »
    There is no question that EON was trying to give us that OHMSS vibe, they even included the theme in the trailer. The several drafts of the script even ended with the line "We have all the time in the world." We are meant to accept that Madeline is, like Tracy, the one text Bond will give it all up for (and they fell far short with tis, so far as I'm concerned). Unfounded? I say very founded. Now I see that @dalton hit the same points above.

    Well, I'm just enforcing that line of thinking.
    It can be in the scripts or in the trailer all it wants, but those are not the film.

Sign In or Register to comment.