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
They should be bringing in John Michael McDonagh, it'd be like hiring Paul Haggis or John Logan for touch ups, only better.
That would require the right director and much better writing. So far with p+w returning we're 0 for 2.
Very true.
P+W have been the downfall of many a Bond movie. They are abysmally bad.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: there may be better writers out there, but P&W really aren't bad for Bond. TWINE was legitimately great, DAD had good ideas that were warped by Tamahori, no complaints about CR apart from the "little finger" thing, their work on QoS was legit, I have no idea what survived from them on SF, and they took over from Logan on SP at the 11th hour with the no-win situation of being told, "We need you to base the climax around Westminster Bridge because we've already built the set." Plus P&W have worked a pretty amazing amount of Fleming into their films. What exactly they've done wrong for the series, I have yet to see.
And TWINE is an unmitigated turkey from start to finish.
They represent everything that's wrong with EON. Tired and devoid of ideas.
Was it? Can you point me in the direction of which authority issued this seal of approval?
Was it? Was it truly? Where is your seal of approval?
Why would hiring Eric Serra make the movie a success?
Probably figured he had a lot to answer for, including stuff like , "well in this scene Waltz was again just barely doing what I asked , and giving me the finger when I wasn't looking
SECTION DELETED.
The commentary I would love to hear is one from Waltz , giving us the lowdown on butting heads with Sammy.
Edited by NicNac for over-enthusiastic use of profanities.
That would be entertaining.
You're right: forthwith I will demand authorized seals of approval from anyone deigning to assign verdicts of quality to any Bond film in the series. Watch out "Moonraker Appreciation Thread," I'm coming for you!
Anything this McDonagh has written you'd recommend?
QT really does know how to produce tension and its a real weakness for SP (and to some extent SF) Walz was wasted, no doubt IMHO and very hard to come back IMHO
That and the dreadful plot and script.
Maybe if he gets a director that gels with him and they can nail a fully unmasked ESB, Waltz might blow us all away.
I think if he does come back he'll feel he has something to prove considering he's admits he didn't get it right the first time.
Guess we'll see but I say the smart money is on his return.
I think the biggest problem for me with "SPECTRE" was that there was too little narrative explanation for certain action.
I mean, suddenly Hinx was there during the SPECTRE-Meeting. Oberhauser/Blofeld should at least have said something like "Ladies & gentlemen? Please welcome my chiropractor Mr Hinx!". Simple line, and you then have a better explanation about the relationship between Hinx & Oberhauser/Blofeld.
You know? Just a bit more 'exposition' as to why things happen in the film. Some more elaborate lines for the characters that explain certain actions.
Another one: Blofeld's lair in the Moroccan crater. I think Sam Mendes should have looked a bit more extensively to "Dr. No". There should have been an extensive dinner sequence in his bungalow and then he should have been locked up. Hinx should have stayed alive and he could have done the torture sequence, while Blofeld was witnessing for a moment. Then he leaves...and....fill out the blanks
Whenever I think of that movie, I hear Ewen McGregor shouting "you were the chosen one!"
Everything about that feature suggests that the producers were hell-bent on creating Brosnan's masterpiece. He never got it.
It is arguably one of the biggest disappointments of the canon. Funnily enough I think TWINE did MI6 under attack better than SF. Brosnan was on form. The locations were solid. The script was, in my opinion, some of the writers' best work.
And yet... the female leads weren't memorable. Robbie Coltrane lost his menace. Apted was okay with the drama but apart from the PTS the action was limp. Pierce probably deserved his classic but hey, that's filmmaking.
I don't want P&W back, they've had their six, but the grey area between the initial script and the shooting script is very murky, particularly for this franchise.
It only took 5 more years, and one more film, before it became official.
For me, TWINE is Brosnan's JB masterpiece, pulling together the best elements of GE and TND into the ultimate Bond experience. I agree with all your positives, yet hold a 180 degree view on your minuses. I think Sophie Marceau was fantastic as both Bond girl and villainess and Denise Richards was a babe and perfectly entertaining as the sassy supermodel nuclear physicist. Pure Bondian fantasy. Robbie Coltrane offered a different Valentin from GE, trading grouchy thuggery for warmth and humor. And I find the action scenes in TWINE, from the banker's office to the Thames chase to the bunker shootout to the caviar factory to the upturned submarine, among the most inventive and most entertaining of the series. But we all see these films differently, don't we?
Couldn't have said it better! Probably not even half as good.
I really really fail to see what problems all you people have with TWINE. It's one of the very very few after Fleming scripts that could really reasonate as a serious spy novel on its own merit and not just because of being a Bond story.
Care to provide some more info on this, a source perhaps? Certainly interesting.