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
Can't imagine what would delay 10 or 20 years. But if that was the case, the producers have put their franchise in an unusually GOOD position to weather such a pause. And to pick up business in the future when the time is right.
Easy to say if you have another 20 years to spare.
The end of the second chapter. 1995-2021
Second chapter babs and mick double team
Third chapter possibly babs + gregg combo?
I could believe that. Plus Amazon.
I share your doubts.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing...................etc. Perhaps Gregg could bring something different.
I don't want to be disrespectful of the man; I'm sure he's made many valuable contributions to the series (and his CR 'Montenegro' cameo rocks.) But I have yet to be convinced of his talent for writing good screenplays. In fact, I have come to wonder if a lot of unfortunate anger aimed at Barbara Broccoli shouldn't, in actuality, be aimed at him--that is, if people must attack filmmakers at all.
And yes, foster brother/nephew/whatever plots rarely work for me. I cringed when Zukovsky had to go there in TWINE, I cringed when Blofeld was treated that way too. But, and I must stress this, such choices overall don't spoil the fun of a film for me. TWINE has other and bigger issues, in my opinion. And SP is a film I will continue to defend.
It's worth saying that that might be a bit harsh on MGW. These sorts of creative decisions aren't undertaken by one person. In order for 'Brofield' to have gone into the script the way it did BB at the very least would have agreed to it. Any one of the screenwriters working on SP could have politely said they didn't think it was the best way to go with this particular character and offered alternative ideas. They presumably didn't. I suspect the truth is most people at that level working on the film rather liked the idea.
well, he is the boss.
He is, but at the highest levels of these departments EON will listen to their collaborators.
I mean, for instance I've read on these forums the (admittedly second hand) story of BB wanting David Arnold to incorporate the YOLT theme into the end scene of DAD. Arnold politely told her he thought it was better that he do an original composition that was inspired by that theme instead. She agreed. I'm sure if anyone on the team (including BB) felt strongly about the Blofeld subplot they'd have pushed back a bit more.
Brofeld was a bad idea, to be sure, but using the OP short story wasn't. In fact, they needed to use "more" of the story.
For me, SP feels off from the beginning but goes off the rails as soon as they return to London after Morocco. There are small moments that feel cool (Bellucci, L'Americain) but not really Bondian TBH. And the ending in the building is just stupid.
I think LTK's story is actually stronger than the final film. There's some smart stuff in there: not many Bond films integrate their action scenes into the plot so well.
Yes it's a good point, it's not exploited very well. There's no particular feeling that Bond especially cares- which I guess is in character, but doesn't give us much. The Oberhauser-murderer plot might have been better if used as something to lure Bond in, but I guess it makes sense to streamline characters into one sometimes.
Paul Haggis said that his original Bond-searches-for-Vesper's-child QOS script ('Sleep of the Dead') was agreed in its entirety and greenlit, only to be scrapped completely by BB and MGW the very next day. According to Forster, they didn't want Bond to be seen delivering the child to a Romanian orphanage and just driving away, so they scrapped the whole storyline. Haggis, an Oscar-winning screenwriter and director in his own right who'd apparently had enough influence to ensure that Clint Eastwood didn't change a single line in the script for Million Dollar Baby, doesn't seem to have had any say in it or been given the chance to object. He was still nonplussed and bemused in interviews several months later.
So it does look as though there are lines in the sand for EON that some, eg. the studios, get to cross and others really don't. In that light, it's difficult to see P & W being rehired late in the day only for them to tell MGW that Brofeld sucked and wouldn't it be better to do something different? I'd imagine it's more likely that they just knuckled down and tried to accommodate the idea the best way they could, tbh.
Fair enough. If not the screenwriters then the director (who as you suggested always seems to have a bit more direct contact/collaboration with the producers) could always bring up specific issues with the story.
As you said, it really depends on what the line in the sand is. At the end of the day the producer's job is to maintain a degree of creative oversight on each Bond film. If, for instance, Cary Fukunaga or Danny Boyle had objected to the initial brief that Bond was to die at the end of NTTD I'm sure neither would have been hired.
But take SP alone. Ralph Fiennes managed to persuade Mendes that a plot twist making M the villain wasn't a good idea. I don't know if it's a case where he holds more sway than the writers do (their job at the end of the day is to develop and script the story EON want to tell, even if they can bring up problems or make suggestions) or if he simply approached Mendes in the right way and effectively convinced him this decision was not the right one for the story. Someone presumably vetoed one of Logan's drafts which made Bill Tanner a SPECTRE mole. And yet the Blofeld subplot seems to have gone through without any pushback that I can read up on. So my suspicion is it wasn't something that received significant, if any backlash. But as you said it may well have been late in the day. Still though, it's not something that seemingly caused any controversy within the production itself, unless I'm not aware of something.
Skyfall = M's past come's back to haunt her = Mega $$$ and critical success.
So for Bond 24, they want to repeat what works. Why fix what isnt broken, right? They has perfected the Bond formula for the 21st century. A billion dollar bond, praising reviews and a significant awards haul.
At the same time, EoN also convinced Sony to spend $10m on their behalf to reacquire the rights to SPECTRE etc from the McClory estate as part of Bond 24 "development costs".
Therefore "the past causing a problem = narrative and emotional stakes" + SPECTRE rights back = Bond and Blofeld having a past that causes narrative friction as seen in the film. Bingo!
Therefore I cant imagine the idea will have caused much issue internally. EoN view the Craig era continuity as very different from the '62-02' continuity so why not make the change. That doesn't reflect what fans would want but I don't think that's part of their decision making. Does the fact it is pretty naff and doesnt really work matter that much to general audiences? Probably not. But the first rule of maintaining any long going franchise surely is to keep your fans happy first and foremost, and then build on appealing to new ones?
It is an idea that absolutely should have been thoroughly examined and weeded out, but given how troubled the script development was on this film (completely unessecarily fwiw), there were other issues that needed attention, and quickly.
Fiennes having the clout to refuse being the villain probably tracks, that would've been a major PR nightmare for them, "new M quits, blames poor script" etc...
I'd arguably say that Ralph Fiennes also had the star power to say no to Mendes. It worked out for the last two movies, arguably.
I agree. It is time for EON to look at new creative people. Michael G Wilson, I don't think is helping much anymore, for better or worse. I think it's Gregg's time to step up. Hopefully, by this time next year, we'll know more about Bond 26.
I don't think that’s going to happen anytime soon.
My hope for the next incarnation is that there is a plan for how it will unfold, one that may involve a story arc , but has the flexibility to do a standalone film , or two, along the way.
Barbara Broccoli and MGW have basically run the ship for almost thirty years. And in that time, they not only relaunched two different Bond eras, but they relaunched one of them when the popular belief was that James Bond was no longer relevant.
In these thirty years, and two different eras, they made films that were not only hugely, wildly, successful at the box office, but they were able to pull in millions of brand new fans.
And in these thirty years, we've witnessed the death of many film franchises-- all of them in their infancy, compared to 007.
No, no big changes need to happen at EoN. They will find the man and the stories they want to tell. It'll happen soon enough.
But seriously, take a step out of our little tunnel-vision here and look at what they've done over the last 30 years. And look at all the franchises we've seen come and go.
Were there mistakes on the way? Of course, but Saltzman and Broccoli also made mistakes. All ventures make mistakes! But the successful ones accumulate far more wins than losses, and build on their positive achievements.
EoN, and those in charge, are just fine. When changes are needed they'll make their shifts and pivots... When they find the right perspective for the new era, it'll likely follow the same pattern of the past 30 (and 60) years: more success...