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
Variety are reporting that he will make "a minimum of $250,000 per episode (some estimates are higher) for a 20-episode commitment."
Given that sum, I am assuming his character will feature in the show more than he does in the book.
This is for the most part true and has been previously noted. If Bond is a "One Trick Pony" for Campbell then I say saddle up and get him back to bookend the Craig era!
Excellent summary of events and, dare I say it, a very nuanced post.
If people like Logan, Newman and Mendes are getting drenched in piss Gustav then they only have themselves to blame.
Courbould I'm less inclined to give a golden shower to as he's just a technician who does what the director and producers tell him. The car and plane chases are competent enough from a technical standpoint and it's not Chris or Gary Powell's fault that they underwhelm. That said I doubt Chris needed much encouragement when they said they were going to do the biggest explosion in history. But hey, it's not his money.
Babs and MGW seem to dodge a lot of the piss that's flying around. It was them who let Logan go AWOL without any supervision, it was them who thought the only solution was to bring back P&W, it was them that gave over so much control to Mendes (thus saddling us with his glove puppet, Newman), it was them who signed off on stepbrothergate and spunking Liberia's GDP up in flames.
EON's control of SP amounts to almost dereliction of duty so if there's any fresh, warm piss to be dished out a fair amount of it should be heading in their direction.
Man, I'm literally laughing out loud, this is so funny.
I would consider that MGW was going through health concerns during part of that. I'm not sure of the timetable though or if that was even a factor or by how much of a factor.
Honest question but how do we know that MGW and BB weren't involved in Logan's early writing? I mean Logan got the job because the producers liked his pitch.
If only it was a laughing matter.
Fair point on MGW. If he was too ill to contribute then I'm happy to absolve him.
If EON were involved in Logan's writing then they just deserve more of the piss stream of criticism as why did it take them till the eleventh hour to reign him in?
I think not supervising properly is slightly better than being fully informed all the way through and only suddenly realising that it was all a pile of shit when it was too late.
Well said. I think some people act like the producers' shit doesn't stink just because they're the gatekeepers of Bond. Like you rightfully said, they're the ones that signed off on all the nonsense and essentially surrendered their authority to accommodate Mendes, Logan and Newman. The one that's the hardest to fathom is leaving Logan unchecked for so long before it was too late and everyone started panicking. EoN need to get it together and start taking their responsibilities a lot more seriously.
One's pitch and story isn't necessarily the same as the screenplay. A lot can change.
Babs and Mike left Logan to his own devices because after SF's success they were feeling Logan way too much, to the point they actually fired P&W and when they did check in, shit hit the fan. Mendes wanted to drop out and the aforementioned writers were brought back in for a quick rush job. There's no way the producers would have been involved and have all this end up happening; and if they were involved it would be wise of them not to admit it as it would make them look more incompetent than having left Logan alone for so long.
Either way the management is still questionable.
And I know that's easier to say in retrospect.
You would have thought they would have learnt their lesson too. Paul Haggis' original idea of Bond running after Vesper's baby and Peter Morgan's original idea of Bond killing M. 2 examples on the 2 previous films where they had to reign writers in - why do they let them go the extent of creating ideas scripts their not happy with - have some sort of guideline - maybe a bit more sophisticated than the one they gave Roald Dahl too - 'he must have three women'
You would have thought they would have learnt their lesson too. Paul Haggis' original idea of Bond running after Vesper's baby and Peter Morgan's original idea of Bond killing M. 2 examples on the 2 previous films where they had to reign writers in - why do they let them go the extent of creating ideas scripts their not happy with - have some sort of guideline - maybe a bit more sophisticated than the one they gave Roald Dahl too - 'he must have three women'
You would have thought they would have learnt their lesson too. Paul Haggis' original idea of Bond running after Vesper's baby and Peter Morgan's original idea of Bond killing M. 2 examples on the 2 previous films where they had to reign writers in - why do they let them go the extent of creating ideas scripts their not happy with - have some sort of guideline - maybe a bit more sophisticated than the one they gave Roald Dahl too - 'he must have three women'[/quote]
is this a joke? quoting and re-quoting until the page explodes??
a simple quote-less reply should do by now one could think...
You just put a WHOLE lot of words in my mouth really @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. I NEVER said that SP is the best of Craig's films. On the contrary.
And if you read my last remark, then we actually agree:
Obviously we are here to be critical, and we should question flaws and hope they get improved next time by actually coming up with solutions (Like: the story needs to be better logic-wise). But you have 'creative disagreement' and 'unnuanced slamming'.
I was merely referring to the tone in here, which sometimes is not just critical, it's plain harsh! Ask yourself if you suddenly were an EON-exec and you stood in front of Mendes or Newman. Man, if we were to spit out criticism the way we do in here sometimes to those people, we would damage the entire Bond production.
In your comment you also say that "You are the biggest fan of the last two Mendes films", while at the same time you are completely slamming Corbould's and Mendes' behaviour when they are truly happy about the result. Kind of a contradiction no from your side? Especially a contradiction in style.
And the word 'nuance'? Christ, we should ff-ing apply it more.....apart from my word use in this sentence for this very moment....;-). But on the whole? Nuance will result in more understanding than only radical slamming. That's my personal opinion.
It all honesty mate I dont think you could use it more. Have you got shares in 'NuanceCorp Inc' or something?
No, but obviously you got shares in that huge American family hotel chain that's frequently in the news these days :-).
No, but obviously you got shares in that huge American family hotel chain that's frequently in the news these days :-).[/quote]
There is a hotel group called "Witty & Eloquent" ?
We will always disagree on that one :-).
Furthermore, I never said I was the biggest fan of the last two Mendes movies, I said I am a bigger fan than most. See the delineation? Once again, you misquote and misunderstand what myself and others are arguing against here.
So because I like SP more than the majority on here, I'm out of order for criticizing the bad production behind it? How does that make any sense, and how is that a contradiction? Unless you think supporting an approach to film production where a director is given limitless control to do anything they want with what resources they want is a good one, when in this case it put EON in hot water in the script department and then in their cripplingly high budget, which Mendes and his team were allowed to balloon without proper oversight.
You claim we need more nuance, but that's exactly what I bring to every post, though I wouldn't use such a word to describe it. I never make declarative, one word shout posts like, "This is garbage!" or "worst film ever." I back everything up that I say and meticulously order and sequence my responses like any trained writer should. This isn't radical slamming, this is me calling out something that I find to be indescribably infuriating and damaging to a Bond production that deserved a better group of people behind the scenes.
But by all means, feel free to ignore it and label me as unsympathetic to EON's cause and the future of Bond on the big screen.
How dull would this place be if we had nothing but appreciation threads, with everyone equally loving and praising every aspect of all the movies?
Okay, sorry for misquoting you then. That wasn't my intention. But I hope you also understand that the same applies for you then. Perhaps we imply a bit too much, and because of that a discussion gets easily erailed.
But I do think I have a point if I say that being criticial is different from slamming. I didn't mean to directly point at you. But some people do that in here. Perhaps not you. I just find that highly irritating. And even on a forum like this, I am entitled to fel irritated about that. Perhaps I am always in a minority with that, and that's sometimes causing problems.
You're a fine forummember by the way.
I hope @Gustav_Graves can be more nuanced on DAD and GE, because his comments on those films seems almost only negative. Which is what he doesn't to want read about SF and SP.
That's not true. By the way, my favourite Brosnan film is TWINE. I really like it. And I think the movie deserves more credit for being some sort of pre-Craig-vehicle.