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
Only to take credit for it in the next installment for sure.
Logan was behind SF (which you despise) while P&W came in to bring SP together (which you love), so why you always think so low of those two is beyond me. You even love all the lack luster stuff they did in the Brosnan era.
TWINE is my No 23 @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7
I'm far away from loving everything scriptwise in TND/TWINE/DAD.
TWINE is as bad as SF and DAD has some ridiculously written things like the gene-teraphy nonsense.
TND is my No 10 because overall the movie kicks-ass, Brosnan is on top of his game and it has some hilariously funny humour in it. And great action. And THAT PTS.
Yes :)) of course true. Thanks for the clarification.
No problem. They do tend to be thought to be involved with everything Brosnan these days. =))
He was not happy with her in QOS.He betrayd Dench M in with being to happy with a possible replacement in Skyfall and was stil to happy with Malory in Spectre. He stil nerves in Skyfall till moment Dench M was gone. Tanner thinks he can be new M/Malory new secatery. In Spectre we disover M not be big fan of Moneypenny and having more with Q and Bond. Tanner wil try to get her fired by Malory and succed but at the end she wil get job back. So he wil not be actualy trater, but afraid for his job (Skyfall is where it start..)
One example, Jez... The golf game in Goldfinger, for example...
It just doesn't ring true at all to me.
Bond is the kind of man who will sit down for a five course meal and respectfully discuss the villain's plans with him for a long while, for crying out loud. If anything, he talks to men too much, instead of just killing them. ;)
"Our asylums are full of people who think they're Napoleon. Or God."
I guess it's just the inevitability of filmmaking, with different writers needed to bring out different things the script is said to need to display. And a director, producer and studio head will all have different ideas for who to hire, etc.
It's just very difficult to judge scripts like those for these recent Bond films because you can never tell what a Haggis, a Logan, a Butterworth, a Purvis or a Wade did that the others had no say on.
I really didn't understand this; it seems to show a distinct lack of understanding of the early Bond films. I think of his conversations with Dr. No, Goldfinger, Largo, and OHMSS' Blofeld, just for starters.
Although I liked SF (not as much as I loved CR), the reintroduction of Moneypenny and Q gave me pause back in 2012. But in retrospect, casting notable stars in those roles (including the new M) led to the bloating of their roles in SP. And Tanner was completely unnecessary in SP; Moneypenny, Q, or M himself could have handled his scenes.
I'm not sure Mendes has ever really "gotten" Bond. All of Bond's backstory in SF and SP, while interesting and novel-fanboyish at first blush, doesn't make a lot of sense as Bond is not a particularly reflective character in the films (for one thing, it's not very cinematic).
The best scenes of Bond's character in SF are, IMHO, his dismissiveness of the psychiatrist at the beginning and his basically ignoring M's questions when they first arrive in Scotland.
Mendes is on the record as saying LALD is one of his favorite Bond films. Who among us fans would choose that film as their inspiration for reinventing Bond?
I have next-to-zero confidence that Mendes knows how to properly wrap up the events of the last two films, let alone the last four.
"Did I overcomplicate the plot?"
Yes, Mendes, you did.
Despite my jabs at SP Butterworth did contribute and I think his job was to clean up the first part of the script while P&W worked on the second half.
I don't see in the script or in SF where Butterworth's assessment of Bond shows up in either script. I could be wrong.
Maybe just another out of context or overblown comment like the wrist one ...or maybe not. I really don't know.
Like I said I really don't know. I read that or recall that from this forum which of course is always right. :D
Bring in some writer who knows his stuff. Preferably mountains and valleys away from an auteur writer and director, please.
P&W added scenes and refocused the climax before and during shooting and later added the torture-scene as late as April 2015. Butterworth polished dialogue and subtracted some scenes here and there in the first acts. I also believe (though not sure) that he wrote some scenes with M and Denbigh.
I believe P&W also were responsible for refocusing scenes concerning Craig's injury later during shooting.
All according the leaks, interviews and James Bond Archives.