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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You f**k a lot in your comments :-). Anyway, nice list of comments.
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.
sure he did:
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.
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 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.'
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.
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.
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?
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.
That's what I thought was being said in M's office.
@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.