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
Shades of DAF and TWINE
Why on earth can't they get this right?
The writing was better back in the days when they banged a film out once every year or two. MGW could have done a better job on his own probably.
Meanwhile Babs is focused on addressing nepotism in the British film industry - presumably she's a big advocate for it?
It's embarrassing.
Hear hear.
Babs making a laughing stock of herself campaigning for a stop to nepotism and people getting work because of who they know and not talent when she's grooming the Wilson brothers for the family business and has been allowing P&W to steal a living for the past 20 years.
If you're an up and coming writer bristling with ideas for Bond that Fleming would be proud to call his own what chance of you getting the opportunity to script a Bond film?
I think about the same as Grant letting you have a cigarette when he's got you on your knees with a gun pointed at you.
I know MGW's commitment to the cause can't be questioned and he deserves to retire but please Michael just do one more Bond script. The 80s screenplays piss all over what we've had for the last 25 years.
I really think P&W are given a very unfair (and undeserved as well) bad rap by all of you. For all we know TWINE is the only script of them in which their work either wasn't tinkered with or simply completely thrown overboard. And despite what many of you are thinking it's an almost perfect script for a spy movie. The fact alone that it has a completely original plot, which by the way is today just as up-to-date as it was then, speaks for itself, especially when it comes to our most beloved franchise. I know they have their problems (for example the trust issue which is a dead horse they have really beaten as thoroughly as possible) but many of the things people here are complaining about are to my mind not their fault. And when it comes to SP they stated in interviews that they were working very much on the fly with this one, with executives of EON and MGM/Sony practically calling on them every hour demanding changes for whatever reason.
You and many others here may not realize it, but movie Bond is very rarely more Flemingesque than in it. Also, go and try to find a plot hole in it, then go and repeat that exercise with all the Bond movies of this millennium. And let me repeat its plot is absolutely original and on the height of time, which in this day and age in the movie industry is as rare as a virgin in the porn business.
I suppose its failure is in the casting, acting (one significant character in particular) and the abysmal direction.
What are you wittering on about? The villain plans to corner the oil market by orchestrating a disaster to leave her in control of the only working pipeline.
Just like Goldfinger and Zorin before her.
Apart from that the only original thing is the personal angle of M knowing the villain - a depressing pit we've only just reached the bottom of with SP.
The rest of it is by the numbers Bond which, when directed by a guy totally unsuited to big budget action cinema, leads to an extremely pedestrian entry.
Well almost every single JB film is "by the numbers" and that has little to no effect on the quality of the film itself. The only films that are in any form "original" might be DN, OHMSS, LTK and CR. This does not mean that the others should be written off by principle.
Yes, Apted was punching above his weight when it came to directing but with the help of the 2nd unit, it turned out very well. He aced the dialogue-driven moments though.
Pedestrian? Perhaps, but not even close to Glen's definition of pedestrian. You must really hate those, since 4/5 were completely by the numbers and had no proper originality of concept. I just don't get why you critique TWINE for being like most of the other JB films??
of 1903 there was no new plot in heist movies. After all it's all about getting other peoples money.
But of course if you use it, you are somehow right, so I stand corrected.
As I told before, I'm mainly a reader of espionage thrillers and it's one of the few Bond movies that could really stand on its own feet as a serious spy novel plot wise.
Also, a villain actually just a puppet played by the supposedly victim. To me that's quite new. Not only in Bond movies.
Finally let me emphasize that you won't find me defending Mr. Apted's direction. I am absolutely aware of the faults of this movie.
Personally I would give that title - without any hesitation - to SF and SP.
But that's exactly why there is no use in arguing about taste.
Indeed they are by the numbers but a good director and script mixes up the formula in a satisfying fashion.
Do me a favour mate. Apart from the PTS the action is extremely average and 'aced the dialogue? Exhibit A: 'There's no point in living if you cant feel aliiive'.
Hardly Bond and Grant in the train compartment is it?
I'm not criticising by the numbers entries if they are done well but a team of Apted, P&W and Vic Armstrong largely on autopilot isn't going to yield spectacular results.
FYEO, OP, TLD and LTK batter TWINE to the floor and stomp on its head without even breaking sweat. I'd probably have it shading AVTAK in fairness, but the combination of Glen and a Maibaum & MGW script plus the best collection of action scenes of the series is a very solid run of films.
I'm glad you understand how the system works. So many people think its worth their time arguing when we all know I'm right.
You may be correct that, to paraphrase Tiffany Case, 'It reads better than it watches' and the female villain (despite the twist being visible from a mile off) and the personal plot to M were original at the time to be fair, as was the Stockholm syndrome thing. I guess my main gripes (apart from the soap opera stuff between Bond and Elektra) are the average action scenes and the total and utter waste of Robert Carlyle. Hes given this big build up in the briefing that he will get stronger and more impervious to pain and then after one half decent scene with Bond he just peters out with a very average punch up.
Also although I like M getting kidnapped it came across as an afterthought just tossed in when they should have used it Colonel Sun plot as the basis for a whole film.
Dont get me wrong I dont loathe TWINE like some and on paper there is so much more to enjoy than TND (which is the very definition of a by the numbers Bond film) but somehow TND just gels together far better and is a much slicker package. I think TWINE gets weighed down under the burden of its dramatic aspirations. Its a story more suited to the Craig era and it would be a far better entry had it been part of the 'this time its personal' Craig era I think.
It trundles along happily enough and to be fair is pretty competent but never shows any sign of elevating itself above being above average.
The action in TWINE is better than average. The PTS (which you mentioned), the bunker and the finale* aboard the submarine. Also, we get Bond doing some ruthless things in this film. E.g immediately shooting Dr. Arkov twice and who can forget Bond killing Elektra in cold blood??
The fact that we get a female villain also differentiates it from the rest. At least they were trying out new things and went through with them.
Edit: That line sounded like it did because of his accent.
(*I don't understand the hate for this fight.)
As I said, to me a good (and somehow original)story is of utmost importance. TWINE qualifies easily
Oh, and you can spare you the part about Brosnan. I think I have a fair idea of what you have to say about his part in it ( and I agree he does some quite funny faces in it, but since he doesn't display them in his other movies I have to blame Apted for it).
For SP bashing too apparently, even in its own appreciation thread. ;)
Exactly. Would be sweet if a moderator comments on that
@Gustav_Graves, after a while you just get used to it. There's no way to go on this forum every day if one gets bugged by it.
I think the blame can be cast upon the decision not to delay production until the script had been 100% smoothed out. Logan's script, delivered in late summer of 2014, by all accounts, was "less-than-stellar." The revision process was too fast, and the script still was not ready...as we are demonstrating in picking out its holes, that seemed a byproduct of simply not thinking things through.
I agree. I'm glad they're taking their time with Bond 25, unlike Quantum and SPECTRE.
As far as I know it has been agreed upon a few weeks ago that appreciation threads may also include negative opinions. Simply for the sake of sheer threads count, as I understood it.
How could it not be ready when they waited a year extra for Mendes? Did they all just go on down the pub for a year? Why was the script not largely nailed down by the end of 2013/early 2014 given they originally would have been scheduled to shoot in early 2014 without the Mendes delay? Then they could have spent the next 10 months or so polishing it.
Instead of which we get to what? June 2014 before anyone notices Logan's script is shite and they have to draft in P&W to do a resuce job?
Half arsed and incompetent doesnt even come close. This is a $250m investment not a village fete FFS.