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
Time will tell if that's true or not.
Yeah, that may be a little too much...Rome in particular. Kind of like the Q and bartender bit. What are you editing this with?
Premiere Pro. I have taken into consideration what other people have said and I will edit accordingly. It is a bit excessive, and true the later part of the film needs a lot of snipping.
Spectre was never supposed to be like Skyfall. Spectre is funny, OTT action, witty and pure entertainment where Skyfall was (too) heavy drama, even dreary at times, no happy end etc.
But it sure is a fun project to make a fan cut.
It is something I will do with Die Another Day and Batsy v Supes.
DAD is pretty perfect in a lot of places but it has some rather despicable moments that can be re-cut or cut out completely.
BvS desperately needs a re-cut and most of Lexenberg and WussSupes cut out. And don't start me on Lois.
I'll see what I can do. I'll have to post my edit as any other fan edit.
One thing I would suggest in this edit is some color correction. A big complaint I do have with SP is that yellowish filter that works in some areas of the movie (like the Rome scene where the flame-like color tones work well in the setting), but absolutely doesn't in many others (the PTS-where the vibrancy of the colors in the costumes of the parades of people are diminished significantly in favor of the filter tricking us into feeling the Mexican heatwave). I'd love to see a cut of SP with no filtering that showed the natural colors of the shots as they were meant to be seen, without manipulation.
Usually I have no issue with color correction and filtering, as most film examples I know of that use such methods lean on green and blue filtering (which I think SF used a bit of too in spots) that don't feel so jarring or uncomfortable to the viewer when they're laid over a shot. The yellow filter however, used as often as it is in SP, really doesn't hold up. It not only makes the colors less vibrant throughout and the skin of the actors strange tones, it overall creates a weird dustiness and feeling of intense heat in spots where I think other filters or none at all would've been better suited. I'd keep the filtering as it is for the Rome scenes and the scenes set at Blofeld's HQ in Morocco where the color actually accentuates the visuals and makes you feel the conditions of the locations, but beyond that, I'm largely not a fan.
Good luck with this.
What does fear me though, is the possible stupid questions of the journalist interviewing Daniel. Therefore, some questions I would ask:
--> Wouldn't it be nicer for the sake of your bosses if you do one more film and then leave that film a bit more open-ended?
--> Wouldn't it be a bit strange if you get promoted to co-producer of the Bond franchise for a first film (and with it all the advantages) and then you...quit?
--> "SPECTRE" wasn't met with universal acclaim and the film got a pretty rough ride starting with the SonyLeaks: What would you improve for a possible 25th film?
--> Honestly Daniel, was the "I'd rather slash my wrists" comment not blown out of proportion a bit?
--> Do you actually realize how the Bond franchise with "SPECTRE" actually got the most closed final ending ever? Would you not rather be co-producer for EON to restart the franchise one more time for you, so that after you another young guy can follow your footsteps?
--> Coming back to the "I'd rather slash my wrists" comments.....as an actor who's constantly under scrutiny by the media, did you have some media training?
--> What's actually your favourite Bond film looking back to the four flicks you starred in? Which production was the most pleasant for you?
--> What were you thinking late december 2014 when the SonyLeaks were released and Amy Pascal wrote earlier in 2014 that it's time to look at Idris Elba to become the next Bond...when you are actually still filming? Doesn't that feel like a huge middle finger to you?
--> Let's say you quit as Bond....do you still want to continue as co-producer behind the scenes?
I hope so. I'm pretty tired of the vague "I don't know what's happening with the next film" response. I'm feeling that's pretty much what we've been getting from Fiennes, Harris, Waltz, etc. Hopefully Daniel will have a clearer picture of what's happening with the franchise.
That was the African warlord version of the villain.
@ToTheRight, I'm sure some have an inkling, but can't say anything. Of course, Waltz like Dan isn't the type to hold back the truth, so if he doesn't know, I really don't think he does.
Waltz seems to be open to returning, but I believe he is waiting like everyone else in the main cast to see what Dan wants to do, as that effects their roles too and if he's out that changes the direction of the franchise in a big way that EON then have to carve out.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2016/sep/08/shia-labeouf-daniel-craig-tom-hiddleston-toll-of-the-role-taylor-swift
Makes you realise that it's pretty pathetic to be complaining about the toll playing Bond takes on you.
I am fairly sure Craig is going to do at least one more. Just hope he doesn't moan about how hard it was to drag himself out of bed and play one of the best roles in cinema.
I can keep my fingers crossed, then i will be pleased if Daniel Craig stayed for Bond 25 after all ;-)
But he's also had to deal with the backlash at the start, and face a difficult shoot like QoS was when he had to pitch in and make sure his superiors got the film done in time. He works tirelessly on these movies on camera and off, and stress is stress no matter what you're doing.
I've never heard Dan waxing dramatic about the series, however. He'll comment on it being tough in spots to navigate a film into creation and deal with a bunch of people in studios who all have their deadlines and bottom-lines, but he's not acting like he's being put out. He's broken a lot of bones and had a lot of surgeries off these films, and faced massive backlash and hasn't complained, so I'd say he hasn't erred.
His feelings on the franchise have been seriously dramatized and misrepresented in the press, just like the damn "wrists" statement that the above article purposely misuses to try and prove a point in an article compiled as satire. He knows he's not curing cancer with his work. He likes playing characters and giving audiences what they want, and that's more than a lot of actors these days can argue as many truly are just in it for the paycheck.
I do find it funny, however, that a writer for a nauseating and oftentimes biased newspaper is deriding actors for having so-called easy jobs. Of course, I'm sure newspaper writers know the real hazards of hard labor more than anyone in the work force, as I'm told the ten second walk from your laptop to the staff printer is a bitch on the knees.
Besides, I actually find his apparent prevarication pretty reasonable - when you've already made that much money, making more at the cost of spending time with loved ones and having some privacy sounds quite silly to me. I just hope he comes back because he is drawn to a really strong script and wants to give his Bond era the great finale it deserves.
I think you're probably wrong on that. I think most actors care about other things than money. It's also a job, so most people can't just do roles for strictly artistic reasons or something, they just do the best they can with what they can get. But those who have been successful, and don't have to do some stuff just so they can pay their bills and take care of their families, surely aren't in it just for the paycheck. Why would they? Some might be, but unlike you I don't see any reason to assume that it is common at all. It doesn't even make sense to me. I mean, why would people who don't have to do it at all money-wise, then do it just for the money? I think the logical thing to assume is that actors generally actually want to act - like Craig. He's hardly some exception.
Otherwise I pretty much agree with you. And that article was just silly in general. A job is a job (indeed it normally isn't glamorous for actors at all), and everyone is sometimes tired or has particularly tough days. Actors included. They work long hours sometimes, 16-hour days, sometimes work through nights, sometimes get injuries, and they have other life beyond their jobs just like everybody else, and things there isn't always easy for them, either. Normal human stuff. Craig doesn't seem like a whiner at all to me, and actors in general don't. I suspect whiners don't do too well in that profession (not for very long anyway) because people won't want to work with them again... and they talk to other people in the industry who then maybe won't, either. Some of them are very well compensated, but they are still just humans who get tired and all. A well-paid person can get tired as well, right? But if you dare express that even once then you're a jerk? Sure one can take quotes out of context and write an article around them to get a piece to support (however weakly) the writer's original bias, but that's not actually journalism.
could've fooled me... cosmetically it might be different (though SF was funnier and more OTT than QOS was remember)... but the old school spy vs. new tech is the same theme lifted from SF.. and the mother/son subtext throughout SF was redone in SP but as father/son/brother..
tonally, the films may be different.. but SP lifts a lot from SF and tries to repackage it.
yes.. according to Mendes, SP was supposed to carry on the similar themes and tones that were introduced in SF..... for better or worse..... My only gripe is that in SF, it all seemed so nice and self contained in it's own film, that dragging it across 2 films seemed redundant, especially when at the end of SF, there was no real set up for the story to keep continuing on (like CR into QOS)..
i still truly believe that if they were going into SP with the decision to retcon aspects of SF and Quantum from QOS and CR, then they really should've done it over 2 films... trying to cram it all into 1 really made everything feel rushed.
Now, now, @bondjames. Just because your number one choice Hiddles has made a complete and utter tool out of himself over Taylor Swift, there's no need to pour cold water over Turner. Rather than base your judgement on a set of photos, why not actually watch him in something with substance, such as And Then There Was None or Poldark, rather than coming back here all the time to post your unresearched and unsubstantiated doubts? Just an idea, my friend.
Most of it is totally unfitting.
I've watched him in both of those and he ain't Bond.
I've watched him in both of those and he ain't Bond.
This is what I've been thinking since the release of SPECTRE. The movie feels like they crammed two movies into one.
Craig isn't the problem. The fresh blood you speak of applies to the writing, directing and the score; which have all been lacking for far too long.