Where does Bond go after Craig?

1386387389391392679

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I’d really advise that that Broccoli’s quote should be taken as: there’s nothing to reveal to the public. If EoN made announcements every time they made a move, it’d be the equivalent of watching paint dry for three years.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 2023 Posts: 3,152
    mtm wrote: »
    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Yes, that's it in a nutshell. I'd rather have original films than adaptations of the continuation novels, anyway, tbh.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,368
    peter wrote: »
    I’d really advise that that Broccoli’s quote should be taken as: there’s nothing to reveal to the public. If EoN made announcements every time they made a move, it’d be the equivalent of watching paint dry for three years.

    Yep, I think that's exactly it. And the most important thing is that BB was promoting a TV show, which is what she wants the attention on. And frankly, any tiny morsel of info about the next Bond movie would have been the thing which got headlines, rather than the show.
    Now, you could say that a free headline would be great for the show, but maybe that's not how they wanted to play it. I dunno: they've got more experience at it than me!


    Anyway, after SIS's comments I was having a quick google of the Fleming family, and saw something I had no idea about. Did you know that James Bond isn't even close to being their main family nest egg?

    Ian Fleming's grandfather had founded Robert Fleming & Co., a Scottish merchant bank in the 19th century. His father and brother both worked for the family business, while Ian, following a career as a spy and journalist, focused on writing books from Goldeneye, his house in Jamaica.

    The family firm continued growing, long after Ian died in 1964, until 2000 when the family sold Robert Fleming & Co. to Chase Manhattan Bank for over $7 billion.

    In an era when family offices were almost unheard of, the Fleming family created Fleming Family Partners to manage the proceeds from this sale on behalf of a growing number of Fleming family members.

    But, just as the Covid-19 pandemic paused the release of 'No Time To Die,' the family firm went into overdrive buying out other family offices. In April last year it acquired Cavendish Asset Management, and in July this year, Stonehage Fleming announced that it was acquiring Maitland.

    These transactions have propelled Stonehage Fleming's assets under management to £16 billion ($21.5 billion) and assets under administration to over £60 billion ($80 billion), making it easily the largest multi family office in Europe.


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/09/30/james-bond-heirs-take-over-the-family-office-world/?sh=2469a66e7c94

    £60 billion!!! :-O
    Enough to make even the Broccolis jealous!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I’d really advise that that Broccoli’s quote should be taken as: there’s nothing to reveal to the public. If EoN made announcements every time they made a move, it’d be the equivalent of watching paint dry for three years.

    Yep, I think that's exactly it. And the most important thing is that BB was promoting a TV show, which is what she wants the attention on. And frankly, any tiny morsel of info about the next Bond movie would have been the thing which got headlines, rather than the show.
    Now, you could say that a free headline would be great for the show, but maybe that's not how they wanted to play it. I dunno: they've got more experience at it than me!


    Anyway, after SIS's comments I was having a quick google of the Fleming family, and saw something I had no idea about. Did you know that James Bond isn't even close to being their main family nest egg?

    Ian Fleming's grandfather had founded Robert Fleming & Co., a Scottish merchant bank in the 19th century. His father and brother both worked for the family business, while Ian, following a career as a spy and journalist, focused on writing books from Goldeneye, his house in Jamaica.

    The family firm continued growing, long after Ian died in 1964, until 2000 when the family sold Robert Fleming & Co. to Chase Manhattan Bank for over $7 billion.

    In an era when family offices were almost unheard of, the Fleming family created Fleming Family Partners to manage the proceeds from this sale on behalf of a growing number of Fleming family members.

    But, just as the Covid-19 pandemic paused the release of 'No Time To Die,' the family firm went into overdrive buying out other family offices. In April last year it acquired Cavendish Asset Management, and in July this year, Stonehage Fleming announced that it was acquiring Maitland.

    These transactions have propelled Stonehage Fleming's assets under management to £16 billion ($21.5 billion) and assets under administration to over £60 billion ($80 billion), making it easily the largest multi family office in Europe.


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/09/30/james-bond-heirs-take-over-the-family-office-world/?sh=2469a66e7c94

    £60 billion!!! :-O
    Enough to make even the Broccolis jealous!

    Wow 😯
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,619
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Why isn’t the British film industry in uproar about this? Do they not care that James fricking Bond seems to be delayed indefinitely by the inactions of their lethargic caretakers? There should be demonstrations from the entertainment industry for the better treatment of a British public institution like Bknd. 😡

    They don't care, I mean have there been any good films from British Film Franchises in the last ten years?
    Look at Harry Potter and its spin offs Fantastic Beasts, for example.

    For me, if there's anyone who should be concerned about this, it's the IFP.

    If Lucy Fleming is still in charge, why not have her question Broccoli and Wilson about the state of the Franchise? Well, I'm not expecting, killing Bond doesn't bother her either.

    Paddington? Which itself has changed director and taken 6 years to get a release date for the third film which is still going to be another year.

    Also IFP have done Young Bond and Sherwood's trilogy, I think they're much more risk taking than EON have been. But yeah given those I don't think killing Bond would've phased them, they've keep plowing on and there's no reason to think EON aren't doing the same.

    I’m thankful that someone is noticing that IFP is taking minor risks for Bond’s literary future. It seems that Dynamite Comics did that for awhile (a still does, on occasion, with certain characters). I’d like to see Bond villain spinoffs, set in the modern day. Other fictional characters have had this done before. Literary Bond could follow up with the trends on this. Ironically, quite a few Bond alumni have criticized EON for killing Bond. I boil it down to EON following trends. Also, a spoiled leading man who on occasion has been given too much creative control. And a pair of screenwriters who fall back on their old tricks, hoping they get hired again, by taking a risk. It’s time to move forward either way, it seems that IFP has been trying to do that, post Anthony Horowitz.
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Yes, that's it in a nutshell. I'd rather have original films than adaptations of the continuation novels, anyway, tbh.

    Depends on the continuation novel, and who’s writing the screenplay.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,368
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Why isn’t the British film industry in uproar about this? Do they not care that James fricking Bond seems to be delayed indefinitely by the inactions of their lethargic caretakers? There should be demonstrations from the entertainment industry for the better treatment of a British public institution like Bknd. 😡

    They don't care, I mean have there been any good films from British Film Franchises in the last ten years?
    Look at Harry Potter and its spin offs Fantastic Beasts, for example.

    For me, if there's anyone who should be concerned about this, it's the IFP.

    If Lucy Fleming is still in charge, why not have her question Broccoli and Wilson about the state of the Franchise? Well, I'm not expecting, killing Bond doesn't bother her either.

    Paddington? Which itself has changed director and taken 6 years to get a release date for the third film which is still going to be another year.

    Also IFP have done Young Bond and Sherwood's trilogy, I think they're much more risk taking than EON have been. But yeah given those I don't think killing Bond would've phased them, they've keep plowing on and there's no reason to think EON aren't doing the same.

    I’m thankful that someone is noticing that IFP is taking minor risks for Bond’s literary future. It seems that Dynamite Comics did that for awhile (a still does, on occasion, with certain characters). I’d like to see Bond villain spinoffs, set in the modern day. Other fictional characters have had this done before. Literary Bond could follow up with the trends on this. Ironically, quite a few Bond alumni have criticized EON for killing Bond. I boil it down to EON following trends.

    So taking risks and doing daring stuff is good, unless it's something I don't like in which case it's bad ;)
    :P
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,619
    mtm wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Why isn’t the British film industry in uproar about this? Do they not care that James fricking Bond seems to be delayed indefinitely by the inactions of their lethargic caretakers? There should be demonstrations from the entertainment industry for the better treatment of a British public institution like Bknd. 😡

    They don't care, I mean have there been any good films from British Film Franchises in the last ten years?
    Look at Harry Potter and its spin offs Fantastic Beasts, for example.

    For me, if there's anyone who should be concerned about this, it's the IFP.

    If Lucy Fleming is still in charge, why not have her question Broccoli and Wilson about the state of the Franchise? Well, I'm not expecting, killing Bond doesn't bother her either.

    Paddington? Which itself has changed director and taken 6 years to get a release date for the third film which is still going to be another year.

    Also IFP have done Young Bond and Sherwood's trilogy, I think they're much more risk taking than EON have been. But yeah given those I don't think killing Bond would've phased them, they've keep plowing on and there's no reason to think EON aren't doing the same.

    I’m thankful that someone is noticing that IFP is taking minor risks for Bond’s literary future. It seems that Dynamite Comics did that for awhile (a still does, on occasion, with certain characters). I’d like to see Bond villain spinoffs, set in the modern day. Other fictional characters have had this done before. Literary Bond could follow up with the trends on this. Ironically, quite a few Bond alumni have criticized EON for killing Bond. I boil it down to EON following trends.

    So taking risks and doing daring stuff is good, unless it's something I don't like in which case it's bad ;)
    :P

    I can relate. ;) your comment sounds like the average MCU (which hasn’t really been truly daring since Endgame) fan, or Star Wars prequel trilogy or sequel trilogy hater. NOTHING personal, it’s just a trend I’m noticing lately.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,368
    It wasn't my comment! :) As you say, it is ironic those people have criticised the choice.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 579
    “ delays due to the strikes”

    What I really don’t want is people in the future explaining a potential large gap between NTTD and Bond 26 by invoking the strikes. The strikes delayed Bond 26 by a couple of months AT MOST.
  • Posts: 4,133
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.

    Yeah, there’s not really any point in adapting the continuation novels. Not sure the world is crying out for an adaptation of one of the Gardner or even Benson novels. I’d argue even Horowitz’s books aren’t up to scratch.

    That said I’m sure there’ll be some overlap in terms of broad plot points/similarities with some of the later continuation novels. Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2023 Posts: 5,970
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?
    “ delays due to the strikes”

    What I really don’t want is people in the future explaining a potential large gap between NTTD and Bond 26 by invoking the strikes. The strikes delayed Bond 26 by a couple of months AT MOST.
    The actors strike is still ongoing, with no end in sight.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    “ delays due to the strikes”

    What I really don’t want is people in the future explaining a potential large gap between NTTD and Bond 26 by invoking the strikes. The strikes delayed Bond 26 by a couple of months AT MOST.

    No, @Colonel_Venus , I disagree: the entire film industry, including Bond (including my own project!!!), has been turned upside down. That’s just a fact. This isn’t a fable. It’s cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Loss of projects. Loss of jobs.

    The unions knew they were striking over a year ago. With that knowledge, there was a domino effect: some productions rushed through development (and many of them still got caught and are waiting release), where other projects slowed down development because what’s the point of spending millions of dollars when there is going to be an industry-wide shut down.

    This isn’t a fable. Covid, then shortly thereafter, two strikes, did true damage to this industry. The damage is very real and I’d be happy to discuss with you again, over PM. But I can tell you, the delay to Bond isn’t and can’t be quantified— especially stating that it only delayed EoN by a couple of months.
  • Posts: 1,979
    Not wanting to pay for the rights to a continuation novel is one thing, but as far as quality, the few continuation novels I've read are as engaging as anything original screenplays have offered.
  • Posts: 561
    “ delays due to the strikes”

    What I really don’t want is people in the future explaining a potential large gap between NTTD and Bond 26 by invoking the strikes. The strikes delayed Bond 26 by a couple of months AT MOST.

    There has been a lot of irrational responses from people acting like petulant children, but saying with such confidence the strikes collective impact was only "a couple months" is one of the more ignorant things I've seen in a while.

    I don't know why Bond fans are so fatalist or self-destructive relative to other fans of brand-name properties.
  • Posts: 1,332
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.

    Yeah, there’s not really any point in adapting the continuation novels. Not sure the world is crying out for an adaptation of one of the Gardner or even Benson novels. I’d argue even Horowitz’s books aren’t up to scratch.

    That said I’m sure there’ll be some overlap in terms of broad plot points/similarities with some of the later continuation novels. Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.

    Make better movies. That's the point.

    It worked with Casino Royale. The best movie that Barbara has produced in her life.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,368
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?

    Blofeld's line about seeing a man deprived of his eyes not being there anymore was from CS but that's most of what they took as I remember. It's odd that they found that so fascinating, but I guess it is a good line and does feel appropriately Fleming-y. Sun does intend to stick long needles into Bond's ear and nostils, and a girl helps him, so I guess the torture is not dissimilar, but I think the actual events are vague enough to have not even credited to CS really- it's Blofeld line which stands out.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 4,133
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?

    .

    The dialogue and broad idea. That did seem to get credited to Amis, and it’s a very specific thing they clearly wanted to adapt directly. Not sure of the logistics of it or whether they had the rights to that material or something.

    I mean, unless they want to directly incorporate similar passages I can’t see whole novels being adapted.

    CrabKey wrote: »
    Not wanting to pay for the rights to a continuation novel is one thing, but as far as quality, the few continuation novels I've read are as engaging as anything original screenplays have offered.

    I do think the most interesting things in Horrowitz’s novels had already been done in the Craig films, especially in Forever and a Day (ie. seeing Bond’s first kill to attain his 00 status, Bond falling in love and having to deal with the death of said girl at the end, Bond getting tortured/put in a particularity perilous situation during the climax etc.) Honestly, I even find the villains in that novel a bit lame. I really don’t rate WAMTK that highly personally either.
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.

    Yeah, there’s not really any point in adapting the continuation novels. Not sure the world is crying out for an adaptation of one of the Gardner or even Benson novels. I’d argue even Horowitz’s books aren’t up to scratch.

    That said I’m sure there’ll be some overlap in terms of broad plot points/similarities with some of the later continuation novels. Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.

    Make better movies. That's the point.

    It worked with Casino Royale. The best movie that Barbara has produced in her life.



    Easier said than done. The question is what exactly will they do to make better movies.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2023 Posts: 5,970
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?
    It's odd that they found that so fascinating, but I guess it is a good line and does feel appropriately Fleming-y.
    I also find it interesting because in previous drafts there was actually a poker scene between Bond and Oberhauser instead, with that scene also being where Madeleine throws the watch and it blows up in Oberhauser's face. For some reason they scrapped that and decided to particularly adapt the sequence from CS.
  • Posts: 4,133
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?
    It's odd that they found that so fascinating, but I guess it is a good line and does feel appropriately Fleming-y.
    I also find it interesting because in previous drafts there was actually a poker scene between Bond and Oberhauser instead, with that scene also being where Madeleine throws the watch and it blows up in Oberhauser's face. For some reason they scrapped that and decided to particularly adapt the sequence from CS.

    To be honest, as strange as the torture scene is I think it’s for the best. It is a weirdly done scene though, so much emphasis on how Bond will forget faces and it comes to nothing. Even if Blofeld had just said ‘after three incisions you won’t remember faces’ it would have helped.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2023 Posts: 5,970
    I suppose thinking about it, Spectre, although I’m sure appreciated by many, is a failure in the scripting stage. From seeing what was in previous drafts, I think that while obviously a script is always built through drafting, Spectre suffered from being the product of too many drafts trying to achieve different things. In the end, it felt like they just cherry picked something from each draft and tried to make a cohesive story but it just didn’t work. While Quantum Of Solace felt like a first draft that needed work, Spectre was a “tenth” draft that needed to be drawn back and focused.
  • Posts: 1,859
    The drilling/torture scene was odd from the stand point that there were no repercussions from it. Five minutes later Bond might as well have had a nose bleed.
  • ivarbrcye99ivarbrcye99 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Posts: 53
    peter wrote: »
    I’d really advise that that Broccoli’s quote should be taken as: there’s nothing to reveal to the public. If EoN made announcements every time they made a move, it’d be the equivalent of watching paint dry for three years.

    I would advise that it means proper pre-production hasn't started yet, which usually begins with the script process, which hasn't started yet.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    I’d really advise that that Broccoli’s quote should be taken as: there’s nothing to reveal to the public. If EoN made announcements every time they made a move, it’d be the equivalent of watching paint dry for three years.

    I would advise that it means proper pre-production hasn't started yet, which usually begins with the script process, which hasn't started yet.

    I’ve already tried that @ivarbrcye99 … but it didn’t do any favours.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2023 Posts: 16,368
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?
    It's odd that they found that so fascinating, but I guess it is a good line and does feel appropriately Fleming-y.
    I also find it interesting because in previous drafts there was actually a poker scene between Bond and Oberhauser instead, with that scene also being where Madeleine throws the watch and it blows up in Oberhauser's face. For some reason they scrapped that and decided to particularly adapt the sequence from CS.

    To be honest, as strange as the torture scene is I think it’s for the best. It is a weirdly done scene though, so much emphasis on how Bond will forget faces and it comes to nothing. Even if Blofeld had just said ‘after three incisions you won’t remember faces’ it would have helped.

    Yeah it's a real cheat: it would be like if Largo had stolen a warhead, Bond had failed to stop him, Largo had pressed the button and... it turned out the bomb was a dud. You just can't tell your audience a lie about the stakes like that.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 579
    Martin Campbell was first rumoured back in the summer of 2003. And then more substantial rumours about him directing Casino Royale emerged in the summer of 2004. By late 2004 him directing CR was a certainty, and he was officially announced in February 2005. So far, nobody other than Nolan has been seriously rumoured to direct Bond 26.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 2023 Posts: 5,970
    Lets be honest though the press are quite unimaginative when it comes to thinking of possible directors for Bond. The same goes for actors; how many articles have we had over the years talking about Nolan, Cavill and Elba *yawn*
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?
    It's odd that they found that so fascinating, but I guess it is a good line and does feel appropriately Fleming-y.
    I also find it interesting because in previous drafts there was actually a poker scene between Bond and Oberhauser instead, with that scene also being where Madeleine throws the watch and it blows up in Oberhauser's face. For some reason they scrapped that and decided to particularly adapt the sequence from CS.

    To be honest, as strange as the torture scene is I think it’s for the best. It is a weirdly done scene though, so much emphasis on how Bond will forget faces and it comes to nothing. Even if Blofeld had just said ‘after three incisions you won’t remember faces’ it would have helped.

    Yeah it's a real cheat: it would be like if Largo had stolen a warhead, Bond had failed to stop him, Largo had pressed the button and... it turned out the bomb was a dud. You just can't tell your audience a lie about the stakes like that.

    Agree on this, wholeheartedly…

    In the end, if Blofeld said nothing other than this bad piece of exposition: over the next fifteen minutes I’ll be drilling into your head. By the end of it, you won’t even know who you are…

    But then Madeleine saves the day with the exploding watch, just moments later…

    That would have been just about enough to justify how unharmed Bond was.

    How they could have missed this, I have no idea.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,288
    Brilliant. IFP should team up with Merry Saltzman to overthrow Eon and make a film every year! Dress Lucy Fleming up like Fatima Blush and Merry like Mata Bond and storm the gates!

    Then begin filming all of the continuation novels in order and faithful to the books. "Colonel Sun too slow, you say? Bollocks! We are the new IFP and we are here for thee!"

    And then everyone here will be happy. For about, oh, three minutes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    echo wrote: »
    Brilliant. IFP should team up with Merry Saltzman to overthrow Eon and make a film every year! Dress Lucy Fleming up like Fatima Blush and Merry like Mata Bond and storm the gates!

    Then begin filming all of the continuation novels in order and faithful to the books. "Colonel Sun too slow, you say? Bollocks! We are the new IFP and we are here for thee!"

    And then everyone here will be happy. For about, oh, three minutes.

    Post of the month. Seriously.
  • edited October 2023 Posts: 4,133
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What's it got to do with IFP?

    They're still in charge with the character too, right? What I'm saying is if who's the one in charge with IFP should question Broccoli and Wilson about these long delays.

    Because they still have the rights regarding the James Bond character.

    That's my thought.

    Think of why the Franchise still couldn't adapt those continuation novels, because the IFP still have the control, think of why they still couldn't adapt TSWLM novel? And I think that's also the reason.

    They still have the influence, power and control over the James Bond Franchise.

    I'm actually surprised that IFP had no reaction regarding the events of NTTD (killing Bond), so let alone this.

    I'm not sure what you're on about. They have control over what they do with the character themselves to a certain extent but it belongs to Danjaq i.e. EON.
    If you open a recent Bond novel you'll see an inscription saying 'James Bond 007 used under licence from Danjaq LLC' - they're not in control of Bond overall at all and have no power, no. However you certainly won't see the IFP name on a Bond film. If anything, EON have the power over them. They can choose to take James Bond away from IFP any time they like. I can well imagine, in fact, that EON have signoff on the novels IFP produce.

    EON are resistant to adapting continuation novels because a) there's nothing really crying out to be adapted
    b) they'd have to pay adaptation rights which they don't have to do if they come up with a story themselves.
    Much in the same vein as Colonel Sun and TWINE involving M getting kidnapped.
    Wasn't the torture scene from Spectre taken from Colonel Sun?
    It's odd that they found that so fascinating, but I guess it is a good line and does feel appropriately Fleming-y.
    I also find it interesting because in previous drafts there was actually a poker scene between Bond and Oberhauser instead, with that scene also being where Madeleine throws the watch and it blows up in Oberhauser's face. For some reason they scrapped that and decided to particularly adapt the sequence from CS.

    To be honest, as strange as the torture scene is I think it’s for the best. It is a weirdly done scene though, so much emphasis on how Bond will forget faces and it comes to nothing. Even if Blofeld had just said ‘after three incisions you won’t remember faces’ it would have helped.

    Yeah it's a real cheat: it would be like if Largo had stolen a warhead, Bond had failed to stop him, Largo had pressed the button and... it turned out the bomb was a dud. You just can't tell your audience a lie about the stakes like that.

    Agree on this, wholeheartedly…

    In the end, if Blofeld said nothing other than this bad piece of exposition: over the next fifteen minutes I’ll be drilling into your head. By the end of it, you won’t even know who you are…

    But then Madeleine saves the day with the exploding watch, just moments later…

    That would have been just about enough to justify how unharmed Bond was.

    How they could have missed this, I have no idea.

    I’ve not read the final script, but perhaps it was something that didn’t quite translate well in the edit? You’re right, even if something like that had been ADR’d it would have been better.

    I suspect it was because they wanted to maintain a sense of shock - ie. Oh no, has Bond just been lobotomised? The issue is it neglects any sense of tension, and it just comes off like the audience have been lied to for some reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.