No Time To Die: Production Diary

13923933953973982507

Comments

  • Posts: 16,149
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.
  • Guy Ritchie - after UNCLE - A BIG FAT NO THANK YOU

    by the way, is it October 7th yet!...and if not, why and who is responsible...

    Hehehe, your writing's are always on the wall cutypie ;-). For me it's a BIG FAT "WHY NOT!?!?!" hehe. "UNCLE" was a financial flop, absolutely. But a financial flop doesn't always equal 'critical flop'. "UNCLE" is still very much more critically acclaimed than "SPECTRE", although I think both films are great:

    --> 67% on RottenTomatoes (vs. 65% for "SPECTRE")
    --> 57% on Metacritic (vs. 60% for "SPECTRE")
    --> 7.3 on IMDB (vs. 6.8 for "SPECTRE")
    --> 3,32 stars on Moviemeter.nl (vs. 3,31 stars for "SPECTRE")

    Regardless of reviews, and liking him or not, I do think Guy Ritchie needs to be considered more seriously. He could also bring down the production budget considerably.
  • Posts: 5,745
    I really really wished we would get a reunion with Matthew Vaughn and Craig before his time as Bond was finished.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.

    Fiennes as a director to me sounds quite implausible. He's well-known for directing stage plays, and he did a pretty good attempt with "The Invisible Woman". But even compared to Sam Mendes, his 'action credentials' are too non-existent. I can't see him outperform the action sequences Martin Campbell, Marc Forster and Sam Mendes did.
  • Posts: 9,843
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell
    - Steven Soderbergh
    - Ron Howard
    - Christopher Nolan
    - Paul Haggis (as director)
    - Guy Ritchie
    - Denis Villeneuve
    - Paul Greengrass
    - Anthony & Joe Russo
    - Jon Favreau
    - Kathryn Bigelow
    - Matthew Vaughn
    - Alfonso Cuarón

    One of those most likely will be the new Bond director. And today Guy Ritchie came out on top:
    http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/18/Guy-Ritchie-in-talks-to-direct-Bond-movie

    Obviously it's all rumours at this stage, but I do think Guy has a serious shot. I personally loved "The Man From UNCLE" as a Goldfinger-esque throwback to stylistic fun and pretty good action-driven, stunt-driven spy films. Not the Brosnan-style of films, but really a 'midas touch of Guy Hamilton' so to say.

    Now I know many people don't like the idea of Guy Ritchie helming a Bond film. His recent films weren't that succesful. But perhaps because of the lack of success Ritchie is being considered. So one doesn't have to high expectations beforehand. I actually love the idea. Also, like Daniel Craig, Guy is pretty much a down-to-earth guy. It could interest Craig to do a 5th and final film with the man.

    There are other logical considerations to this story. "The Man From UNCLE" was a Warner Brothers production, just like "Sherlock Holmes". And it could very well be that by bringing Ritchie onboard, also Warner will become the next Bond distributor. Then there's Daniel Pemberton as movie score composer, who might very well join the all British bandwagon.

    Any forummembers in here who love the idea of Guy Ritchie directing?
    Yeah I am fine with this especially after seeing The Sherlock Holmes films
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.

    P & W are part of the reason we didn't get the early drafts of SP Logan left us with. It's easy to run them through the mud, but it's a fact that the movie we got is masterful in comparison to the tripe that could have been.

    Unless everybody wants to say Logan's work was infinitely better. Unless people want to say that Tanner being a traitor out of nowhere who kills himself in front of Bond is a brilliant idea, a female American CIA agent playing Bond's wife that is then revealed as a traitor is amazing, or that Moneypenny (who Felix Leiter pops in to call a "foxy lady") and M as implied traitors is a great addition. Everybody in Logan's drafts were goddamn traitors for crying out loud. I thought that the biggest issues people always had with these films were the endless traitors? You'd think that the breakaway from this in later scripts by P&W would be welcomed, not missed.

    P&W shouldn't face the major blame here, especially since, out of the main writers, we know the least about what they contributed, while we know all Logan submitted and suggested in detail, thanks to the worried responses of Sony and Barbara, as well as the indignant manner of MGW in a meeting surrounding Logan's work.

    It was Logan who cut and run with everything in shambles, and apparently Mendes who may have wanted to follow suit, leaving P&W to come in and make the best of it, which I think they did. The SP we got is a far, far cry from the original drafts, and thank Fleming for it.

    So the next time the need is felt to complain about SP, just imagine what you could have gotten if Logan's work was kept and run with as is, without P&W on hand. Ouch.
  • Posts: 1,314
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    What do you think will happen on OCT. 7th? What could this announcement be, we will have to wait and see if we want to find out.

    Personally I don't think Craig will return. It's just a hunch I have, but the other day I remembered how history happens in cycles, kind of like poetry. Remember how Dalton took the role in a more realistic and grounded direction, and how Craig is most often said to have borrowed from that interpretation? After Dalton there was a extended break until a handsome dark haired Irishman stepped in. From what we can gather, history looks set to repeat itself yet again after Craig hangs up the tux. The old rule, it turns out, is true.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    My comments in bold as it's easier than fiddling with the quote thing for each one:
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell - f**k yes.
    - Steven Soderbergh - meh.
    - Ron Howard - possibly but doesn't blow me away.
    - Christopher Nolan - I know some are dead against and worry he would retread some of the territory covered by Mendes but I'm happy to take the risk.
    - Paul Haggis (as director) - no thanks after his black Bond comments.
    - Guy Ritchie - would need to be watched carefully by EON but I think he could deliver under the right circumstances. Might be just what the doctor ordered actually as a bloke without all Mendes' delusions of grandeur is definitely needed. Would want his tricksy camera style toned down to a minimum though.
    - Denis Villeneuve - yes.
    - Paul Green-grass - after slating Bond to f**k and back? Yeah Paul come and fill your boots son. A raving lefty who despises everything Bond represents is the last thing we need.
    - Anthony & Joe Russo - I retract my previous comment about Greengrass. The actual last thing we need is Marvel directors.
    - Jon Favreau - see above.
    - Kathryn Bigelow - see Ron Howard.
    - Matthew Vaughn - after Kick Ass definitely, after Kingsman not so keen.
    - Alfonso Cuarón - I would literally kick a baby to death for him to get the gig.

    doubleoego wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.

    Fiennes as a director to me sounds quite implausible. He's well-known for directing stage plays, and he did a pretty good attempt with "The Invisible Woman". But even compared to Sam Mendes, his 'action credentials' are too non-existent. I can't see him outperform the action sequences Martin Campbell, Marc Forster and Sam Mendes did.

    Does Sam Mendes have any action credentials? Oh yeah a f**k off big explosion in the desert.

    Pre Bond Mendes had zero experience directing action so I don't see how that precludes Fiennes. Certainly, as @doubeloego, points out he's the only one on the staff who seems to have a clue at the minute.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.

    P & W are part of the reason we didn't get the early drafts of SP Logan left us with. It's easy to run them through the mud, but it's a fact that the movie we got is masterful in comparison to the tripe that could have been.

    Unless everybody wants to say Logan's work was infinitely better. Unless people want to say that Tanner being a traitor out of nowhere who kills himself in front of Bond is a brilliant idea, a female American CIA agent playing Bond's wife that is then revealed as a traitor is amazing, or that Moneypenny (who Felix Leiter pops in to call a "foxy lady") and M as implied traitors is a great addition. Everybody in Logan's drafts were goddamn traitors for crying out loud. I thought that the biggest issues people always had with these films were the endless traitors? You'd think that the breakaway from this in later scripts by P&W would be welcomed, not missed.

    P&W shouldn't face the major blame here, especially since, out of the main writers, we know the least about what they contributed, while we know all Logan submitted and suggested in detail, thanks to the worried responses of Sony and Barbara, as well as the indignant manner of MGW in a meeting surrounding Logan's work.

    It was Logan who cut and run with everything in shambles, and apparently Mendes who may have wanted to follow suit, leaving P&W to come in and make the best of it, which I think they did. The SP we got is a far, far cry from the original drafts, and thank Fleming for it.

    So the next time the need is felt to complain about SP, just imagine what you could have gotten if Logan's work was kept and run with as is, without P&W on hand. Ouch.

    You perhaps have a point. It's EON we should be hammering, firstly for allowing Logan to off reservation without supervision for so long and secondly for thinking P&W are the only people in the world who could rescue things. Terrible decisions fro start to finish.

    You say imagine if P&W hadn't come in to rescue the SP script (if stepbrothergate can be classed as rescuing things). Well why can't I imagine someone better than P&W coming in to rescue it? Wouldn't that be an even more desirable outcome.
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?

    I'm still waiting too. Bond certainly seems to think it's hilarious but as far as I can tell the only reason is to set up Ralph's punchline later.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    My comments in bold as it's easier than fiddling with the quote thing for each one:
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell - f**k yes.
    - Steven Soderbergh - meh.
    - Ron Howard - possibly but doesn't blow me away.
    - Christopher Nolan - I know some are dead against and worry he would retread some of the territory covered by Mendes but I'm happy to take the risk.
    - Paul Haggis (as director) - no thanks after his black Bond comments.
    - Guy Ritchie - would need to be watched carefully by EON but I think he could deliver under the right circumstances. Might be just what the doctor ordered actually as a bloke without all Mendes' delusions of grandeur is definitely needed. Would want his tricksy camera style toned down to a minimum though.
    - Denis Villeneuve - yes.
    - Paul Green-grass - after slating Bond to f**k and back? Yeah Paul come and fill your boots son. A raving lefty who despises everything Bond represents is the last thing we need.
    - Anthony & Joe Russo - I retract my previous comment about Greengrass. The actual last thing we need is Marvel directors.
    - Jon Favreau - see above.
    - Kathryn Bigelow - see Ron Howard.
    - Matthew Vaughn - after Kick Ass definitely, after Kingsman not so keen.
    - Alfonso Cuarón - I would literally kick a baby to death for him to get the gig.

    doubleoego wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.

    Fiennes as a director to me sounds quite implausible. He's well-known for directing stage plays, and he did a pretty good attempt with "The Invisible Woman". But even compared to Sam Mendes, his 'action credentials' are too non-existent. I can't see him outperform the action sequences Martin Campbell, Marc Forster and Sam Mendes did.

    Does Sam Mendes have any action credentials? Oh yeah a f**k off big explosion in the desert.

    Pre Bond Mendes had zero experience directing action so I don't see how that precludes Fiennes. Certainly, as @doubeloego, points out he's the only one on the staff who seems to have a clue at the minute.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.

    P & W are part of the reason we didn't get the early drafts of SP Logan left us with. It's easy to run them through the mud, but it's a fact that the movie we got is masterful in comparison to the tripe that could have been.

    Unless everybody wants to say Logan's work was infinitely better. Unless people want to say that Tanner being a traitor out of nowhere who kills himself in front of Bond is a brilliant idea, a female American CIA agent playing Bond's wife that is then revealed as a traitor is amazing, or that Moneypenny (who Felix Leiter pops in to call a "foxy lady") and M as implied traitors is a great addition. Everybody in Logan's drafts were goddamn traitors for crying out loud. I thought that the biggest issues people always had with these films were the endless traitors? You'd think that the breakaway from this in later scripts by P&W would be welcomed, not missed.

    P&W shouldn't face the major blame here, especially since, out of the main writers, we know the least about what they contributed, while we know all Logan submitted and suggested in detail, thanks to the worried responses of Sony and Barbara, as well as the indignant manner of MGW in a meeting surrounding Logan's work.

    It was Logan who cut and run with everything in shambles, and apparently Mendes who may have wanted to follow suit, leaving P&W to come in and make the best of it, which I think they did. The SP we got is a far, far cry from the original drafts, and thank Fleming for it.

    So the next time the need is felt to complain about SP, just imagine what you could have gotten if Logan's work was kept and run with as is, without P&W on hand. Ouch.

    You perhaps have a point. It's EON we should be hammering, firstly for allowing Logan to off reservation without supervision for so long and secondly for thinking P&W are the only people in the world who could rescue things. Terrible decisions fro start to finish.

    You say imagine if P&W hadn't come in to rescue the SP script (if stepbrothergate can be classed as rescuing things). Well why can't I imagine someone better than P&W coming in to rescue it? Wouldn't that be an even more desirable outcome.
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?

    I'm still waiting too. Bond certainly seems to think it's hilarious but as far as I can tell the only reason is to set up Ralph's punchline later.
    Sure he did.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 12,837
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell
    - Steven Soderbergh
    - Ron Howard
    - Christopher Nolan
    - Paul Haggis (as director)
    - Guy Ritchie
    - Denis Villeneuve
    - Paul Greengrass
    - Anthony & Joe Russo
    - Jon Favreau
    - Kathryn Bigelow
    - Matthew Vaughn
    - Alfonso Cuarón

    One of those most likely will be the new Bond director. And today Guy Ritchie came out on top:
    http://ewn.co.za/2016/09/18/Guy-Ritchie-in-talks-to-direct-Bond-movie

    Obviously it's all rumours at this stage, but I do think Guy has a serious shot. I personally loved "The Man From UNCLE" as a Goldfinger-esque throwback to stylistic fun and pretty good action-driven, stunt-driven spy films. Not the Brosnan-style of films, but really a 'midas touch of Guy Hamilton' so to say.

    Now I know many people don't like the idea of Guy Ritchie helming a Bond film. His recent films weren't that succesful. But perhaps because of the lack of success Ritchie is being considered. So one doesn't have to high expectations beforehand. I actually love the idea. Also, like Daniel Craig, Guy is pretty much a down-to-earth guy. It could interest Craig to do a 5th and final film with the man.

    There are other logical considerations to this story. "The Man From UNCLE" was a Warner Brothers production, just like "Sherlock Holmes". And it could very well be that by bringing Ritchie onboard, also Warner will become the next Bond distributor. Then there's Daniel Pemberton as movie score composer, who might very well join the all British bandwagon.

    Any forummembers in here who love the idea of Guy Ritchie directing?

    I'd love Ritchie. Didn't seen Man From UNCLE, looked a bit bland, but Lock Stock, Snatch, Rock n Rolla, his Sherlock flicks, all great films. I'd love to see what he could do with Bond.

    Vaughn would be perfect but he won't do it. After the CR fiasco I doubt him or EON are keen, besides, Kingsman was his Bond film and I think it was better that way. Kingsman was essentially, like Kick Ass, an independent film. His production company financed it and then they sold it to the studio once they were done. He could do what he wanted. If he did a Bond film, as great as it'd probably be, it would at the end of the day be a big budget studio film so he'd be forced to tone down his style a lot.

    I guess you could say the same of Ritchie in regard to UNCLE being his Bond film, but judging from how well that did I'd say any possibility of a sequel is dead in the water, whereas Kingsman did very well and Vaughn seems happy to continue on with that (my prediction is he'll make it a trilogy, if the second one does well that is). I'd like the Rock n Rolla sequel and Sherlock 3 before anything else off Ritchie though.

    Nolan would be brilliant but I can't see it happening. I'd love Katheryn Bigelow too. And Campbell would obviously be great, I'd love for him to introduce the next actor, so we have a sort of spiritual trilogy between CR, GE, and Bond 25 (or 26 if Craig returns). The rest of your names on your list don't really excite me though to be honest.

    How about Shane Black? The Nice Guys was great. I'd like to see what Edgar Wright would do as well but like with Vaughn there's the problem of would it work with a big studio breathing down his neck.
  • My comments in bold as it's easier than fiddling with the quote thing for each one:
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell - f**k yes.
    - Steven Soderbergh - meh.
    - Ron Howard - possibly but doesn't blow me away.
    - Christopher Nolan - I know some are dead against and worry he would retread some of the territory covered by Mendes but I'm happy to take the risk.
    - Paul Haggis (as director) - no thanks after his black Bond comments.
    - Guy Ritchie - would need to be watched carefully by EON but I think he could deliver under the right circumstances. Might be just what the doctor ordered actually as a bloke without all Mendes' delusions of grandeur is definitely needed. Would want his tricksy camera style toned down to a minimum though.
    - Denis Villeneuve - yes.
    - Paul Green-grass - after slating Bond to f**k and back? Yeah Paul come and fill your boots son. A raving lefty who despises everything Bond represents is the last thing we need.
    - Anthony & Joe Russo - I retract my previous comment about Greengrass. The actual last thing we need is Marvel directors.
    - Jon Favreau - see above.
    - Kathryn Bigelow - see Ron Howard.
    - Matthew Vaughn - after Kick Ass definitely, after Kingsman not so keen.
    - Alfonso Cuarón - I would literally kick a baby to death for him to get the gig.

    doubleoego wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.

    Fiennes as a director to me sounds quite implausible. He's well-known for directing stage plays, and he did a pretty good attempt with "The Invisible Woman". But even compared to Sam Mendes, his 'action credentials' are too non-existent. I can't see him outperform the action sequences Martin Campbell, Marc Forster and Sam Mendes did.

    Does Sam Mendes have any action credentials? Oh yeah a f**k off big explosion in the desert.

    Pre Bond Mendes had zero experience directing action so I don't see how that precludes Fiennes. Certainly, as @doubeloego, points out he's the only one on the staff who seems to have a clue at the minute.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.

    P & W are part of the reason we didn't get the early drafts of SP Logan left us with. It's easy to run them through the mud, but it's a fact that the movie we got is masterful in comparison to the tripe that could have been.

    Unless everybody wants to say Logan's work was infinitely better. Unless people want to say that Tanner being a traitor out of nowhere who kills himself in front of Bond is a brilliant idea, a female American CIA agent playing Bond's wife that is then revealed as a traitor is amazing, or that Moneypenny (who Felix Leiter pops in to call a "foxy lady") and M as implied traitors is a great addition. Everybody in Logan's drafts were goddamn traitors for crying out loud. I thought that the biggest issues people always had with these films were the endless traitors? You'd think that the breakaway from this in later scripts by P&W would be welcomed, not missed.

    P&W shouldn't face the major blame here, especially since, out of the main writers, we know the least about what they contributed, while we know all Logan submitted and suggested in detail, thanks to the worried responses of Sony and Barbara, as well as the indignant manner of MGW in a meeting surrounding Logan's work.

    It was Logan who cut and run with everything in shambles, and apparently Mendes who may have wanted to follow suit, leaving P&W to come in and make the best of it, which I think they did. The SP we got is a far, far cry from the original drafts, and thank Fleming for it.

    So the next time the need is felt to complain about SP, just imagine what you could have gotten if Logan's work was kept and run with as is, without P&W on hand. Ouch.

    You perhaps have a point. It's EON we should be hammering, firstly for allowing Logan to off reservation without supervision for so long and secondly for thinking P&W are the only people in the world who could rescue things. Terrible decisions fro start to finish.

    You say imagine if P&W hadn't come in to rescue the SP script (if stepbrothergate can be classed as rescuing things). Well why can't I imagine someone better than P&W coming in to rescue it? Wouldn't that be an even more desirable outcome.
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?

    I'm still waiting too. Bond certainly seems to think it's hilarious but as far as I can tell the only reason is to set up Ralph's punchline later.

    You f**k a lot in your comments :-). Anyway, nice list of comments.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?

    Sure, @Matt007.

    Bond is essentially just prodding playfully at Denbigh with the initial "C" because, just as "M" could be seen as deriving from the M in Military Intelligence, Section 6 or from his position as "Minister," I think Max Denbigh's codename of "C" is meant to stand for his position as head or "Chief" of the Centre for National Security.

    It's not very clear, and I have always hated that scene. It may be my least favorite in the entire Craig era, actually.

    Hearing Bond say, "that sounds lovely" to Denbigh's dream for British Intelligence at the end of the M meeting is horrid. Bond would never, ever say that.
  • jake24 wrote: »
    My comments in bold as it's easier than fiddling with the quote thing for each one:
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell - f**k yes.
    - Steven Soderbergh - meh.
    - Ron Howard - possibly but doesn't blow me away.
    - Christopher Nolan - I know some are dead against and worry he would retread some of the territory covered by Mendes but I'm happy to take the risk.
    - Paul Haggis (as director) - no thanks after his black Bond comments.
    - Guy Ritchie - would need to be watched carefully by EON but I think he could deliver under the right circumstances. Might be just what the doctor ordered actually as a bloke without all Mendes' delusions of grandeur is definitely needed. Would want his tricksy camera style toned down to a minimum though.
    - Denis Villeneuve - yes.
    - Paul Green-grass - after slating Bond to f**k and back? Yeah Paul come and fill your boots son. A raving lefty who despises everything Bond represents is the last thing we need.
    - Anthony & Joe Russo - I retract my previous comment about Greengrass. The actual last thing we need is Marvel directors.
    - Jon Favreau - see above.
    - Kathryn Bigelow - see Ron Howard.
    - Matthew Vaughn - after Kick Ass definitely, after Kingsman not so keen.
    - Alfonso Cuarón - I would literally kick a baby to death for him to get the gig.

    doubleoego wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.

    Fiennes as a director to me sounds quite implausible. He's well-known for directing stage plays, and he did a pretty good attempt with "The Invisible Woman". But even compared to Sam Mendes, his 'action credentials' are too non-existent. I can't see him outperform the action sequences Martin Campbell, Marc Forster and Sam Mendes did.

    Does Sam Mendes have any action credentials? Oh yeah a f**k off big explosion in the desert.

    Pre Bond Mendes had zero experience directing action so I don't see how that precludes Fiennes. Certainly, as @doubeloego, points out he's the only one on the staff who seems to have a clue at the minute.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.

    P & W are part of the reason we didn't get the early drafts of SP Logan left us with. It's easy to run them through the mud, but it's a fact that the movie we got is masterful in comparison to the tripe that could have been.

    Unless everybody wants to say Logan's work was infinitely better. Unless people want to say that Tanner being a traitor out of nowhere who kills himself in front of Bond is a brilliant idea, a female American CIA agent playing Bond's wife that is then revealed as a traitor is amazing, or that Moneypenny (who Felix Leiter pops in to call a "foxy lady") and M as implied traitors is a great addition. Everybody in Logan's drafts were goddamn traitors for crying out loud. I thought that the biggest issues people always had with these films were the endless traitors? You'd think that the breakaway from this in later scripts by P&W would be welcomed, not missed.

    P&W shouldn't face the major blame here, especially since, out of the main writers, we know the least about what they contributed, while we know all Logan submitted and suggested in detail, thanks to the worried responses of Sony and Barbara, as well as the indignant manner of MGW in a meeting surrounding Logan's work.

    It was Logan who cut and run with everything in shambles, and apparently Mendes who may have wanted to follow suit, leaving P&W to come in and make the best of it, which I think they did. The SP we got is a far, far cry from the original drafts, and thank Fleming for it.

    So the next time the need is felt to complain about SP, just imagine what you could have gotten if Logan's work was kept and run with as is, without P&W on hand. Ouch.

    You perhaps have a point. It's EON we should be hammering, firstly for allowing Logan to off reservation without supervision for so long and secondly for thinking P&W are the only people in the world who could rescue things. Terrible decisions fro start to finish.

    You say imagine if P&W hadn't come in to rescue the SP script (if stepbrothergate can be classed as rescuing things). Well why can't I imagine someone better than P&W coming in to rescue it? Wouldn't that be an even more desirable outcome.
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?

    I'm still waiting too. Bond certainly seems to think it's hilarious but as far as I can tell the only reason is to set up Ralph's punchline later.
    Sure he did.

    sure he did:
  • Posts: 1,314
    Thanks but I thought M was for miles messervy. Or Mi6.

    C just seems like a random setting up of a joke further in the screenplay. If he was called Charles chesservy for eg it might make more sense(?)

    Re the "that sounds lovely". I don't hate that so much. I can imagine roger saying that.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 12,837
    My only problem with C is that Bond comes up with it himself, but then it seems to just stick and become the characters name. Like when he uses it in casual conversation with Blofeld. Wouldn't Blofeld stop and say wait, who are you on about? You mean Max? I like how Bond mocks him though, Craig plays it brilliantly, and I love M's now we know what C stands for line, that definitely got the biggest laugh at my cinema.
    Hearing Bond say, "that sounds lovely" to Denbigh's dream for British Intelligence at the end of the M meeting is horrid. Bond would never, ever say that.

    I don't see what's wrong with it. If you mean the word itself I could easily see Fleming's Bond using it when talking to a girl or something. Or if you mean how he says it to C, it's clear he's being sarcastic and taking the piss.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    My only problem with C is that Bond comes up with it himself, but then it seems to just stick and become the characters name. Like when he uses it in casual conversation with Blofeld. Wouldn't Blofeld stop and say wait, who are you on about? You mean Max? I like how Bond mocks him though, Craig plays it brilliantly, and I love M's now we know what C stands for line, that definitely got the biggest laugh at my cinema.

    I like how in the next scene Tanner knows who C is even though only Bond and M heard the gag.

    Are we to assume that after Bond, looking smugly pleased with himself after this comic masterpiece, thought it such a great gag that he texted 'his best friend in the service' Tanner?

    'Bill you'll love this mate. I've come up with an absolutey corking nickname for that new Denbeigh tosser. C!!! Geddit? C!! Is that class or what?'

    'Nice one James! PMSL.'

    Then presumably C, given they 'watch everyone', then hacks Bond or Tanner's phone and calls up Blofeld, 'Ernst when you get hold this Bond wanker make sure you give his head a good drilling. You'll never guess what the funny twat calls me: C. C? Wtf is that about? Arsehole.'

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    jake24 wrote: »
    My comments in bold as it's easier than fiddling with the quote thing for each one:
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell - f**k yes.
    - Steven Soderbergh - meh.
    - Ron Howard - possibly but doesn't blow me away.
    - Christopher Nolan - I know some are dead against and worry he would retread some of the territory covered by Mendes but I'm happy to take the risk.
    - Paul Haggis (as director) - no thanks after his black Bond comments.
    - Guy Ritchie - would need to be watched carefully by EON but I think he could deliver under the right circumstances. Might be just what the doctor ordered actually as a bloke without all Mendes' delusions of grandeur is definitely needed. Would want his tricksy camera style toned down to a minimum though.
    - Denis Villeneuve - yes.
    - Paul Green-grass - after slating Bond to f**k and back? Yeah Paul come and fill your boots son. A raving lefty who despises everything Bond represents is the last thing we need.
    - Anthony & Joe Russo - I retract my previous comment about Greengrass. The actual last thing we need is Marvel directors.
    - Jon Favreau - see above.
    - Kathryn Bigelow - see Ron Howard.
    - Matthew Vaughn - after Kick Ass definitely, after Kingsman not so keen.
    - Alfonso Cuarón - I would literally kick a baby to death for him to get the gig.

    doubleoego wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.

    Fiennes as a director to me sounds quite implausible. He's well-known for directing stage plays, and he did a pretty good attempt with "The Invisible Woman". But even compared to Sam Mendes, his 'action credentials' are too non-existent. I can't see him outperform the action sequences Martin Campbell, Marc Forster and Sam Mendes did.

    Does Sam Mendes have any action credentials? Oh yeah a f**k off big explosion in the desert.

    Pre Bond Mendes had zero experience directing action so I don't see how that precludes Fiennes. Certainly, as @doubeloego, points out he's the only one on the staff who seems to have a clue at the minute.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.

    P & W are part of the reason we didn't get the early drafts of SP Logan left us with. It's easy to run them through the mud, but it's a fact that the movie we got is masterful in comparison to the tripe that could have been.

    Unless everybody wants to say Logan's work was infinitely better. Unless people want to say that Tanner being a traitor out of nowhere who kills himself in front of Bond is a brilliant idea, a female American CIA agent playing Bond's wife that is then revealed as a traitor is amazing, or that Moneypenny (who Felix Leiter pops in to call a "foxy lady") and M as implied traitors is a great addition. Everybody in Logan's drafts were goddamn traitors for crying out loud. I thought that the biggest issues people always had with these films were the endless traitors? You'd think that the breakaway from this in later scripts by P&W would be welcomed, not missed.

    P&W shouldn't face the major blame here, especially since, out of the main writers, we know the least about what they contributed, while we know all Logan submitted and suggested in detail, thanks to the worried responses of Sony and Barbara, as well as the indignant manner of MGW in a meeting surrounding Logan's work.

    It was Logan who cut and run with everything in shambles, and apparently Mendes who may have wanted to follow suit, leaving P&W to come in and make the best of it, which I think they did. The SP we got is a far, far cry from the original drafts, and thank Fleming for it.

    So the next time the need is felt to complain about SP, just imagine what you could have gotten if Logan's work was kept and run with as is, without P&W on hand. Ouch.

    You perhaps have a point. It's EON we should be hammering, firstly for allowing Logan to off reservation without supervision for so long and secondly for thinking P&W are the only people in the world who could rescue things. Terrible decisions fro start to finish.

    You say imagine if P&W hadn't come in to rescue the SP script (if stepbrothergate can be classed as rescuing things). Well why can't I imagine someone better than P&W coming in to rescue it? Wouldn't that be an even more desirable outcome.
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?

    I'm still waiting too. Bond certainly seems to think it's hilarious but as far as I can tell the only reason is to set up Ralph's punchline later.
    Sure he did.

    sure he did:
    Joking GG. I've made it apparent that I'm a huge fan of both his films.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    jake24 wrote: »
    My comments in bold as it's easier than fiddling with the quote thing for each one:
    I recently posted this list of potential Bond directors:

    - Martín Campbell - f**k yes.
    - Steven Soderbergh - meh.
    - Ron Howard - possibly but doesn't blow me away.
    - Christopher Nolan - I know some are dead against and worry he would retread some of the territory covered by Mendes but I'm happy to take the risk.
    - Paul Haggis (as director) - no thanks after his black Bond comments.
    - Guy Ritchie - would need to be watched carefully by EON but I think he could deliver under the right circumstances. Might be just what the doctor ordered actually as a bloke without all Mendes' delusions of grandeur is definitely needed. Would want his tricksy camera style toned down to a minimum though.
    - Denis Villeneuve - yes.
    - Paul Green-grass - after slating Bond to f**k and back? Yeah Paul come and fill your boots son. A raving lefty who despises everything Bond represents is the last thing we need.
    - Anthony & Joe Russo - I retract my previous comment about Greengrass. The actual last thing we need is Marvel directors.
    - Jon Favreau - see above.
    - Kathryn Bigelow - see Ron Howard.
    - Matthew Vaughn - after Kick Ass definitely, after Kingsman not so keen.
    - Alfonso Cuarón - I would literally kick a baby to death for him to get the gig.

    doubleoego wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    Here's an idea why not Fiennes as the next director?

    He certainly speaks more sense than anyone else involved with the production and if it wasn't for him saying digging his heels in they'd have gone with M as a traitor.

    I wouldn't mind seeing Fiennes have a crack at directing. He's certainly not the most experienced directing, but 'Coriolanus' had a decent amount of action in it, far more than anything Mendes has ever done. And Fiennes has good comic timing, so he shouldn't have issues dealing with the lighter moments in the film, should they go in that direction. Not to mention, he's well respected among his peers, which can't be a bad thing.

    I wouldn't mind Fiennes directing either. He'd certainly be better than Branagh. Plus, Fiennes knows his Fleming and tge fact that he had the knowledge and good sense to toss out the inane idea if Marvel being a traitor suggests to me that he's one of the few if not the only one on the payroll that actually knows what he's doing.

    Fiennes as a director to me sounds quite implausible. He's well-known for directing stage plays, and he did a pretty good attempt with "The Invisible Woman". But even compared to Sam Mendes, his 'action credentials' are too non-existent. I can't see him outperform the action sequences Martin Campbell, Marc Forster and Sam Mendes did.

    Does Sam Mendes have any action credentials? Oh yeah a f**k off big explosion in the desert.

    Pre Bond Mendes had zero experience directing action so I don't see how that precludes Fiennes. Certainly, as @doubeloego, points out he's the only one on the staff who seems to have a clue at the minute.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    P+W must have some traitor fetish. Almost all of their Bond scripts featured one.
    If M or Tanner had been a traitor as well it would have been laughable. Does MI6 function at all in P+W's eyes?

    Funny you mention that, because wasn't Tanner a traitor in one of the scripts, either SF or SP?

    SPECTRE. In that particular draft, Tanner ends up committing suicide while Bond watches.

    Why not just kill M off instead? Oh, yes, they already did that. I guess those are the ideas that get tossed around when EON chooses to focus more on the MI6 staff than our hero-007. I liked when doing something different with an MI6 regular meant Q going to Isthmus City to help Bond fight Sanchez in LTK. Or M, Q, Moneypenny and Frederick Gray going to the race track to spot Zorin in AVTAK.

    Absolutely, brilliant idea. Kill of M. I'm sure P+W will find this splendid.
    It's two movies ago, so it is up for a remake. And why do original scripts when you can recycle your one and only original story for all eternity to come. The common moviegoer will not notice it seems even when it is blatantly clear as in 2012.

    P & W are part of the reason we didn't get the early drafts of SP Logan left us with. It's easy to run them through the mud, but it's a fact that the movie we got is masterful in comparison to the tripe that could have been.

    Unless everybody wants to say Logan's work was infinitely better. Unless people want to say that Tanner being a traitor out of nowhere who kills himself in front of Bond is a brilliant idea, a female American CIA agent playing Bond's wife that is then revealed as a traitor is amazing, or that Moneypenny (who Felix Leiter pops in to call a "foxy lady") and M as implied traitors is a great addition. Everybody in Logan's drafts were goddamn traitors for crying out loud. I thought that the biggest issues people always had with these films were the endless traitors? You'd think that the breakaway from this in later scripts by P&W would be welcomed, not missed.

    P&W shouldn't face the major blame here, especially since, out of the main writers, we know the least about what they contributed, while we know all Logan submitted and suggested in detail, thanks to the worried responses of Sony and Barbara, as well as the indignant manner of MGW in a meeting surrounding Logan's work.

    It was Logan who cut and run with everything in shambles, and apparently Mendes who may have wanted to follow suit, leaving P&W to come in and make the best of it, which I think they did. The SP we got is a far, far cry from the original drafts, and thank Fleming for it.

    So the next time the need is felt to complain about SP, just imagine what you could have gotten if Logan's work was kept and run with as is, without P&W on hand. Ouch.

    You perhaps have a point. It's EON we should be hammering, firstly for allowing Logan to off reservation without supervision for so long and secondly for thinking P&W are the only people in the world who could rescue things. Terrible decisions fro start to finish.

    You say imagine if P&W hadn't come in to rescue the SP script (if stepbrothergate can be classed as rescuing things). Well why can't I imagine someone better than P&W coming in to rescue it? Wouldn't that be an even more desirable outcome.
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Can anyone explain why max Denbigh should be called "C" in the first place?

    I'm still waiting too. Bond certainly seems to think it's hilarious but as far as I can tell the only reason is to set up Ralph's punchline later.
    Sure he did.

    sure he did:

    Not sure he can count the Hinx fight as part of his pre Bond action credentials. Looks like his action CV comprises solely of that bag being blown around.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 12,837
    My only problem with C is that Bond comes up with it himself, but then it seems to just stick and become the characters name. Like when he uses it in casual conversation with Blofeld. Wouldn't Blofeld stop and say wait, who are you on about? You mean Max? I like how Bond mocks him though, Craig plays it brilliantly, and I love M's now we know what C stands for line, that definitely got the biggest laugh at my cinema.

    I like how in the next scene Tanner knows who C is even though only Bond and M heard the gag.

    Are we to assume that after Bond, looking smugly pleased with himself after this comic masterpiece, thought it such a great gag that he texted 'his best friend in the service' Tanner?

    'Bill you'll love this mate. I've come up with an absolutey corking nickname for that new Denbeigh tosser. C!!! Geddit? C!! Is that class or what?'

    'Nice one James! PMSL.'

    Then presumably C, given they 'watch everyone', then hacks Bond or Tanner's phone and calls up Blofeld, 'Ernst when you get hold this Bond wanker make sure you give his head a good drilling. You'll never guess what the funny twat calls me: C. C? Wtf is that about? Arsehole.'

    I think I'm actually gonna take this as the explanation now, just because I love the image of Bond being a smug twat who thinks he's way funnier than he is telling everyone about his quips and nicknames. Can just imagine him smugly telling Tanner about some corny one liner he made on a mission (lets say the deep water line in SF), struggling to contain his own laughter at his own joke, and then Tanner laughing hysterically while everyone else in the office just rolls their eyes and cringes.
  • Posts: 4,044
    The Head of MI6 is C in real life, so it is a straight transfer into the movies. That's explain how Tanner knows, because everyone knows (or they can Google it).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,117
    vzok wrote: »
    The Head of MI6 is C in real life, so it is a straight transfer into the movies. That's explain how Tanner knows, because everyone knows (or they can Google it).

    Well:

    a) this isn't real life it's a parallel universe where M is the head of MI6 (despite the film seeming to pretend he's only in charge of the double O 'program').

    b) is everyone in the audience expected to know that C is the head of MI6?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    My only problem with C is that Bond comes up with it himself, but then it seems to just stick and become the characters name. Like when he uses it in casual conversation with Blofeld. Wouldn't Blofeld stop and say wait, who are you on about? You mean Max? I like how Bond mocks him though, Craig plays it brilliantly, and I love M's now we know what C stands for line, that definitely got the biggest laugh at my cinema.
    Hearing Bond say, "that sounds lovely" to Denbigh's dream for British Intelligence at the end of the M meeting is horrid. Bond would never, ever say that.

    I don't see what's wrong with it. If you mean the word itself I could easily see Fleming's Bond using it when talking to a girl or something. Or if you mean how he says it to C, it's clear he's being sarcastic and taking the piss.

    I get the sarcasm, it's just not something I see Bond saying. "Lovely" isn't an adjective I imagine him pulling out for that situation.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I always understood the C was meant for c u n t.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Say what you like about Aidan Turner but he is great with handling the press and generally very happy-go-lucky.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I always understood the C was meant for c u n t.

    That's what I thought was being said in M's office.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Bond was unnessesarily hostile in that scene.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited September 2016 Posts: 28,694
    Bond was unnessesarily hostile in that scene.

    @dominicgreene, I actually read it as far too soaked in humor and sarcasm (unless you mean in his discussion with M before C enters, which I actually agree with). Dan's performance felt too much like how Roger wouldn't handled it, and it just felt so "off." It's the one moment in the entire time he's been Bond where I just didn't believe his Bond would act like that or say those things. I just have a hard time believing that "lovely" is in the vocabulary of Dan's Bond.

    The whole scene falls flat, all things besides.
Sign In or Register to comment.