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
And those voices continue on long after the shooting script is done.
I'd take either of those over the stepbrother idea, honestly. Doesn't get much worse than that. Did they really think a return of Blofeld after several decades was only going to make an impact if they had a personal, familial connection?
I get why he was doing it; he didn't want to serve up what we had seen before.
But, the problem seemed to be in the story itself. In the end, it just wasn't working. Ever.
When P&W came on board, they seemed to make the executives happy with the first one hundred pages of script-- but the finale was, evidently, not loved (as was the case with every draft delivered thus far).
Once again, I have to go back to my feeling that they (Eon, MGM and Sony) were so hell-bent on delivering a SPECTRE/Blofeld story that they collectively could not see the story wasn't working until it was too late: it was SPECTRE/Blofeld, or nothing.
And they couldn't deliver "nothing" to the investors (no one wanted, or had the stomach, to wait another year of script development on a brand new story-- they wanted Bond. Now... It was a mess).
The deadline was there, and kudos to the producers (from EoN, MGM, and Sony) for making something that resembled a coherent (yet flawed) film.
And, by the way-- SPECTRE is not the only film to go through this (in fact, every film, by and large, seems to go through these chaotic moments-- it's a wonder we get the CRs or Sfs of DKs or GODFATHERs (minus the Third-- a complete shit-show)); @RC7 was correct in telling us: making a film is like going to a war...
We enjoy the final show, but for that to be brought to us, it took creativity and management, yes, but, also, A LOT OF LUCK...
So for anyone slamming EoN, they are, actually a beast: they consistently make films (historically) every 2, 3, 4 and 6 years as an "indie" outfit (not too studio, like the Disney/Marvel machine); they continue to make buckets-load of money (even after Albert's passing 22 years ago); they continue to bring in international audiences; they are consistent-- even with their weaker efforts. Bond does deliver.
As @bondjames said, they've made a change in creative story-telling that has, like in the past, excited the fan-base; I'm sure EoN will deliver something that will also excite the general audiences.
B24 was one of 24 (soon to be 25) films. It was not, and would never have been, the death warrant of Bond, James Bond-- agent 007. He will live on-- up and downs included.
Nothing will kill Bond.
For instance, there is no evidence that mendes directed SF and then SP with some sort of "Fan Wank," as @SaintMark says. By all accounts, the script for Bond 23 (and even 24) was being worked on prior to Mendes ever signing on the dotted line in the first place. And Spectre and Blofeld were not legally available to EON until a year prior to Bond 24 shooting.
There is no evidence, anywhere, that Mendes and Craig clashed on set of SP. I have yet to find anything, other than rumors in The Express.
What we do have, however, as @peter has recapped, is a history of the Bond 24 being a complete mess. Didn't we all sense this when Mendes rejected the script and had to bring in Butterowrth to try to fix it?
Mendes may be a lot of things (especially to fans on this board). But an "idiot" is not one of them. He may have had his DNA on a lot of drafts, but he could NOT have had his DNA on early drafts of Bond 24, which were written before he came on board for that film, too. The timeline simply doesn't support it.
What we can reasonably conclude is that EON saw an opportunity for a big, shocking reveal of Oberhauser being Blofeld. It might have worked, might have been cool...except 1. They named the film Spectre; 2. The Sony hack revealed it all beforehand.
However, from the leaks, it seems Mendes was working on the script-development with Logan. He was, and I quote, “distressed “ when Barbara forced them (Logan and Mendes) to submit the latest draft to Sony and MGM. Furthermore, there is an email written by Mendes assuring certain criticisms of one of the drafts was positively cleaned up (they weren’t; these issues were seen in the final picture).
However, I think Logan and Mendes were looking for an original take on the SPECTRE/Blofeld story; but this story, no matter how many time it was re-written, just wasn’t holding together.
No doubt. I think we all agreed that the project was rushed into filming. And the more I watch the film, the more it definitely seems like several different scripts/story ideas had been brought together.
I wouldn't. At least with the stepbrother you can ignore it in future installments. Not with the other two.
These films, especially MR and TSWLM also very much feel like a collection of (great) scenes, rather than a film that is telling a story. Take the train scene in TSWLM as an example. It makes absolutely no sense that Bond an XXX are taking the train but the filmamkers wanted to have a train sequence so there had to be one. The same applies to the scene where Jaws for whatever reason is driving with Bond and XXX several hundred kilometers south to the old temple just to do exactly what? He has the microfilm. What does he intend to do there? Again the fimmakers said, oh we are in Egypt, the pyramids and Cairo are not enough, so let us for no real reason bring Bond further south to bring in some more beautifull locations.
Executives will want one of these ideas (sometimes more) developed. The writer(s) are hired (some have three-step deals).
Once the script starts taking shape there are on-going meetings with the writer(s) on further development-- the executives will come loaded with notes, and the writer(s) will go away and incorporate the notes into the development of the script.
Further along the line, these writers may be replaced by polishers or script-doctors to come in and tidy up anything from plot-points to dialogue.
This may go on even further if a director is hired and has some ideas about story/structure-- s/he may want another pass at the script before locking it.
Even shooting drafts are tinkered with, right through until the editing process (which is like the final draft!).
A script, even the shooting script, is not an absolute. All the main plot-points may be locked, but there are always some organic changes being made to it through the entire filmmaking process.
That's my bloated way of saying QoS probably went through similar steps before the writer's strike hit. Once the strike hit, no member from WGA (the Writer's Guild of America) could work on any production. And non-union members would never be hired (they're known as "scabs").
This is probably why we hear that during early production, while the strike was still on, DC and MF were left to tinker with the script (and I'm sure they must have received notes from the executives as well).
From my understanding, though, once the strike was over, MF brought on a script doctor to polish any rough edges.
+1!!!
As @TheWizardOfIce said, though, the brothergate stuff could have been solved in one afternoon. Moreover, Forster still managed to deliver a good, solid film in a year and a half despite the writers strike, whereas Mendes had a full year more than Forster and no strikes and delivered a messy film.
TWINE may have had its problems, but the plotting was ok. Made sense to me anyway. The idea for the plot was a little similar to GF, which influenced AVTAK as well.
Well, P&W are on the Record that from the moment on Bond comes to Shanghai the movie has nothing to do with their script, but was completely rewritten by Logan and Mendes. They were also adamant that what they wrote made much more sense and I believe them (simply because that is not hard). I guess it's not coincidence, that from that moment on every form from logic in SF flies out of the window.
Mendes/Logan and the term 'original take' practically exclude each other. Come to think about it Websters dictionary could take that as an prime example for an oxymoron.
????. I happen to see it completely the other way around.
How so?
Blofeld is a specific character. Making him Ernestina makes him a completely different character. Giving him completely different cultural and ethnical origins makes him another character. Giving him a different background and a past with Bond is a HUGE mistake don't get me wrong. But the rest is far closer to the original novel Blofeld than Ernestina or an African warlord with an inexplicable Germanic name (and I know Blofeld is Polish, but his name is still Germanic). Bond barely acknowledging the jealousy of his enemy makes it far easier to disregard it altogether in the future.
I have had big problems with CR by being a reboot, hence restarting the series so obviously by giving a damm about everything that had been there before. But over the years I have learned to accept this path since there had to be a restart after DAD towards a different direction: e.g. getting rid of Q and Moneypenny and having Quantum instead of SPECTRE.
SP now just tries to make some money by bringing back this old stuff. Why?
You just answered your own question,unfortunately.
SP had no enthusiasm or love put into the film,as other Bond films have,its just a hollow machine there to make money.
But it still exists. If you can simply disregard a stepbrother connection, then you can easily disregard anything else and just recast Blofeld in the future with a new actor or something.
One of the very few plusses that come out of Craig's separate timeline.
This is only his Blofeld in his timeline,so the proper Blofeld,connected to all the other Bonds and Bond #7 still hasn't appeared yet since DAF in the main timeline.
Of course it still exists but it's easier to be disregarded than turning Blofeld into Ernestina or an improbable African warlord... then disregarding this threw a different casting.
Different strokes for different folks. I wouldn't mind at all if they had cast a female Blofeld. If they were going with a stepbrother idea, surely this wasn't outside the realm of possibilities?
It's not like they'll carry a lot of this over to a new era, if any of it; I've no doubts when Blofeld returns inevitably with a new actor, the role will be recast with a new spin entirely and no stepbrother angle in sight.
The movie had no Threat. None whatsover. If you don't have a threat, you don't have a good villain, you don't have tension. Thats exactly what went wrong (imho).
9 eyes? Not good enough, the NSA has been doing that for decades, no one cared even then. The more interesting question would have been WHY do they (Spectre) want to implement 9 Eyes? Whats the end game?
In the old movies, the writers (or Fleming really) were smart enough to make Blofeld threaten the world with a Nuclear Bomb and killing millions of innocent civillians. Thats a story an 8 year old can understand. Spectre instead is going nowhere. What is Bond supposed to stop? Do we care for him to win? There is nothing at stake.
Worse than all that was making C and Blofeld semi seperate. That way it is not even clear how much Blofeld is even involved with 9 Eyes, and whether he cares if it works or not!
The plot becomes completely pointless at that point. I don't give a single toss whether Blofed gets caught by the end because he has no meaning to the plot.
Spectre had 3 villains, and all of them were pointless.
1) C, the only one who has anything resembling "a plan" and a threat (not good enough), and he doesn't even cross paths with Bond. It's retarded.
The other two villains are mixed into one.
2) Oberhauser, Bonds long lost foster brother, who on paper might have been actually a good idea and should have been the only villain in that movie (with A PLAN!)
3) Blofeld... Bonds "arch nemesis" and head of Spectre, you know, the organization without a goal. And why is he there? No one knows.
@00Agent is spot on. What exactly are the stakes? and how easy are they to grasp?
Re-introducing SPECTRE and Blofeld couldn't be a money making decision as the audience in 2015 was probably made up of 95% who never heard of it.
I would say it was Eon trying to remain true to Fleming and Cubby B by bringing these back, but at the same time looking for a new twist on it all. If it failed, it was more an honest failure. No way would BB and MW set out to crap all over their father's, or Fleming's legacy.
Thanks.
Also i think Mendes is mostly to blame for this.
I love Skyfall (it's my #2) but in Spectre he lost the plot literally.
I think he does not understand action movies and how tension and urgency are created in action movies. Usually you would have a threat established in the first act so everybody knows what the hell the hero of the story is fighting for.
Spectre goes on and on and never gets to that point.
Even the foster brother angle is not creating any motivation for anybody to do anything about it. No one needs to stop or kill anybody else. It's just there...
I think they definitly should have cut out at least one of the 3 villains i mentioned, but they felt the need to include Blofeld and Spectre, so they should have definitly gotten rid of Oberhauser and then give Blofeld a proper introduction (without relying on the gimmick of them being brothers) and make him directly involved in 9 eyes, with a future plan to conquer or overthrow some governments and a threat of more & bigger terrorist attacks.
What the movie also needed, but what some might regard as one of the most cliched scenes in action and thriller movies, (but it's usually there for a very good reason and Mendes was probably too artsy to include it) was of couse the notorious "villain explains his plot to the captured hero" scene. If you think about it, almost all the Bond films have one. In Spectre they had 2 oportunities for Blofeld to explain what the hell he is after, and they wasted them on useless "drama".
Spectre is no longer (or shouldn't be) an organization that needs thousands of people on the payroll. As with everything today, they outsource, and they do so without letting anyone else see the bigger picture. Quantum was already doing that. The meeting in Rome worked well, because we saw the inner machinations. The image and metaphor of the octopus is a good one: it suggests tentacles everywhere. But the head didn't need to be in the middle of the Moroccan desert.
says @00Agent: "The more interesting question would have been WHY do they (Spectre) want to implement 9 Eyes? Whats the end game?"
Yes.