SPECTRE Production Timeline

1135136138140141870

Comments

  • Posts: 6,396
    Getafix wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I thought I entered the 'Bond 24 Production Timeline' thread, not a bitter argument not dealing with 'Bond 24'. Let's keep it on topic, these arguments are really getting nowhere. No sense in derailing a proper thread.

    Admittedly this is a trap I fall way too easily into. I just can't stand still when someone is waxing on those alleged virtues of SF, especially when it goes hand in hand with this "there never was any logic in Bond movies" bashing. I see this (at the very least) as an serious insult to the great and late Richard Maibaum, who always went to great length to iron out some of Flemings largest logic gaps. I promise,that I try my best to restrain myself on this very topic,but please people,try the same when it comes to SFs virtues. Praise it for its own merits (ie cinematography and acting) and not by denigrating its predecessors or claiming some perceived Fleming spirit that it hasn't got!

    I completely agree with you. The comments about the early Bond movies being full of glaring plotholes is an insult to Maibaum, who was frankly a genius. The salvage job that Logan did on P+W's dodgy Skyfall script does not deserve comparison with Maibaum's cleverly and tightly plotted, witty and well crafted work on Bond up to LTK. The Bond films have suffered for a long time now from the lack of a scriptwriter of his skill. However, this is a thread about Bond 24, so I sympathise with those who want to focus on that.

    I think we have to be realistic though about what to expect from Logan on Bond 24. Logan's strength is not originality. Many of his biggest successes (Last Samurai, Gladiator) are highly derivative stories. What he is good at is often meaty and enjoyable dialogue (something that Purvis and Wade were incapable of). This was evident in SF, where some key scenes (such as Silva's entrance speach) had some really sparkling lines. Gladiator is full of memorable, perhaps slightly cheesy, but enjoyable lines, brilliantly carried off by Russell Crowe.

    So, what I'm hoping for are some really well written individual scenes. I do hope that the whole thing hangs together much better than SF, and I think the departure of P+W should hopefully make that easier.

    I am not that interested in exploring Bond's inner psyche. I think the danger with doing that is that frankly there isn't very much there to explore and Bond when it boils down to it is not an inherently interesting individual. Fleming never envisaged him that way. It is about how he operates, the world he inhabits, the action he takes etc.

    "Bond, James Bond" in Dr No. and almost every film thereafter is a glaring plot hole wouldn't you say?
  • Posts: 11,425
    I don't know if it's technically a 'plot hole', but clearly there is some absurdity in it, which Roger Moore took much delight in sending up. I seem to remember Bond using an alias and cover more often in the earlier films though.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [M's flat is] just a bloody flat, not Fort Knox for crying out loud; not hard.

    Ok, I'll focus on this point to make it shorter.

    Right after a personal terrorist attack, it's supposed to be just a bloody flat ?

    I have no problem with movies that need to suspend disbelief, but why some people here try so hard to prove it's airtight logic instead ? In the real world, M's flat would have been very well guarded right after a terrorist attack on her, to me, thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking to claim Skyfall is a masterpiece on every level !

    I feel that many here are acting as psychanalysts who have a theory to prove first, and who twist the facts to what they need. And whose who dare to disagree are looked upon with contempt, they're not clever enough for psychoanalysis...

    I don't "complain" Skyfall is full of movie logic, I just claim it's not full of "airtight" logic and character development like others seem to need badly to prove Skyfall is the best. I would complain of say, too much movie logic in a movie like The Spy Who Came In From The Cold if it had been handled this way, but not in any Bond movie, and in particular a Bond movie in which Bond turns into Jaws and survive a lethal fall to begin with ! :)

    Sometimes I wonder if such an irrationnal defense of Skyfall is caused by the fact Mendes is back for Bond 24, and some need reasons to hope...

    M wasn't in any danger at all, so why guard her? Silva could have had a bomb planted by a car outside her house and killed her right there since at this point in the film M doesn't know who is behind the explosion at MI6 yet, beyond maybe a few suspicions. The point you are forgetting is that Silva doesn't want to kill her. He knew her schedule to and from MI6 backwards and forwards, so if he wanted to killer her he would have just waited until he knew she was inside the building. He didn't do that because he wanted her to watch the explosion to strike fear and shock in her, not kill her; it'd be too quick and not personal. This woman wronged him and he wants to really get back at her, so he is doing everything he can to cause her great amounts of stress and anxiety before killing her face to face, and not through some indirect explosion. And because of this, M's apartment doesn't need any men outside because Silva doesn't wish to kill her yet; what good would a few guys do against an engineered explosion or something anyway?

    Sorry, but with all due respect, this is one of the silliest comments on here all day. The head of MI6 doesn't deserve beefed up security following a terrorist attack on her office...?

    It was exactly this find of lack of attention to detail that let SF down.

    But any way, that is the past, and we should be focusing on Bond 24, at least on this thread.

    We do not know if her house was under surveillance or not, for one. That it was does not prevent Bond form breaking and entering unnoticed. And MI6 was attacked, not her personally (at the time we do not know who is behind the attack or what is his intentions). Beside, she may be the head of MI6, she is no PM, she is not the Queen either. She is even on the verge of retirement!

    Come on! You're just being silly. She is the head of the Secret Service. Her office has just been targeted in a terror attack. Who else were they targeting? It is utterly implausible that special measures would not be taken to protect her at such a time.

    And what does her retirement have to do with it?

    Any way, this was not by any means the main problem with SF - just emblematic of a general slackness in plot and detail.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Getafix wrote:
    I don't know if it's technically a 'plot hole', but clearly there is some absurdity in it, which Roger Moore took much delight in sending up. I seem to remember Bond using an alias and cover more often in the earlier films though.

    Ironically, it's Roger who's had more aliases and cover stories than any other Bond.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Is there any news on who is scoring the film? Newman again?
  • Posts: 6,396
    Getafix wrote:
    Is there any news on who is scoring the film? Newman again?

    No news so far but given Newman's relationship with Babs and MGW last time out, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else. Hopefully, not DA though.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Getafix wrote:
    Is there any news on who is scoring the film? Newman again?

    No news so far but given Newman's relationship with Babs and MGW last time out, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone else. Hopefully, not DA though.

    But don't you think with the success of SF and the creative freedom they must be giving Mendes that he will have his pick of composers? Assuming Newman wants to come back, I guess.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 15,218
    Getafix wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    [M's flat is] just a bloody flat, not Fort Knox for crying out loud; not hard.

    Ok, I'll focus on this point to make it shorter.

    Right after a personal terrorist attack, it's supposed to be just a bloody flat ?

    I have no problem with movies that need to suspend disbelief, but why some people here try so hard to prove it's airtight logic instead ? In the real world, M's flat would have been very well guarded right after a terrorist attack on her, to me, thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking to claim Skyfall is a masterpiece on every level !

    I feel that many here are acting as psychanalysts who have a theory to prove first, and who twist the facts to what they need. And whose who dare to disagree are looked upon with contempt, they're not clever enough for psychoanalysis...

    I don't "complain" Skyfall is full of movie logic, I just claim it's not full of "airtight" logic and character development like others seem to need badly to prove Skyfall is the best. I would complain of say, too much movie logic in a movie like The Spy Who Came In From The Cold if it had been handled this way, but not in any Bond movie, and in particular a Bond movie in which Bond turns into Jaws and survive a lethal fall to begin with ! :)

    Sometimes I wonder if such an irrationnal defense of Skyfall is caused by the fact Mendes is back for Bond 24, and some need reasons to hope...

    M wasn't in any danger at all, so why guard her? Silva could have had a bomb planted by a car outside her house and killed her right there since at this point in the film M doesn't know who is behind the explosion at MI6 yet, beyond maybe a few suspicions. The point you are forgetting is that Silva doesn't want to kill her. He knew her schedule to and from MI6 backwards and forwards, so if he wanted to killer her he would have just waited until he knew she was inside the building. He didn't do that because he wanted her to watch the explosion to strike fear and shock in her, not kill her; it'd be too quick and not personal. This woman wronged him and he wants to really get back at her, so he is doing everything he can to cause her great amounts of stress and anxiety before killing her face to face, and not through some indirect explosion. And because of this, M's apartment doesn't need any men outside because Silva doesn't wish to kill her yet; what good would a few guys do against an engineered explosion or something anyway?

    Sorry, but with all due respect, this is one of the silliest comments on here all day. The head of MI6 doesn't deserve beefed up security following a terrorist attack on her office...?

    It was exactly this find of lack of attention to detail that let SF down.

    But any way, that is the past, and we should be focusing on Bond 24, at least on this thread.

    We do not know if her house was under surveillance or not, for one. That it was does not prevent Bond form breaking and entering unnoticed. And MI6 was attacked, not her personally (at the time we do not know who is behind the attack or what is his intentions). Beside, she may be the head of MI6, she is no PM, she is not the Queen either. She is even on the verge of retirement!

    Come on! You're just being silly. She is the head of the Secret Service. Her office has just been targeted in a terror attack. Who else were they targeting? It is utterly implausible that special measures would not be taken to protect her at such a time.

    And what does her retirement have to do with it?

    Any way, this was not by any means the main problem with SF - just emblematic of a general slackness in plot and detail.

    Read my post again before throwing insults. I said we do not know if surveillance to her home is being done or not. If there is, this does not prevent Bond to break and enter. Is it far fetched? Yes. Does realism leaves the way to dramatic effect? Certainly. But it is not something unheard of in a Bond movie, or a movie in general. MI6 is being attacked, not its head personally (not at this point anyway). I will repeat it again: M is not the head of state, she is not the head of government, she is a high ranking civil servant about to retire. They probably did do some kind of surveillance after the attack happened, but then again, her private home would not be guarded like Buckingham Palace, or 10 Downing Street, or the Parliament, or what have you. It was a terrorist attack on a governmental building, after all.

    For a realistic treatment of the same basic plot (a terrorist attack on MI6), read the first volume of Queen & Country by Greg Rucka. It is aptly called Operation Broken Ground. Completely realistic, especially in their treatment of surveillance of the agent targeted by the Russian mob who did blow up the MI6 building. And I am telling you now: surveillance is minimal.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,425
    "Insults." Are you serious? Are you really that thin skinned?

    Any way, leaving this tedious argument to one side, just read this excellent interview with Mankiewizc posted by @Royale65 on another thread.

    Very interesting. I really hope Logan reads it.

    I like the bit about not covering Bond's perosnal life. Makes sense to me.

    http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/interview.asp?IID=1101
  • Posts: 15,218
    I don't find my arguments silly and I find you arrogant to be dismissive of them.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,425


    Thinking on what Mankiewicz says in his interview, I'm then left remembering his actual films, which are amongst my least favourite in the series. Still, an interesting interview.
  • Posts: 4,410
    I think it's clear from looking at Mendes's recent comments that Mallory will be a significant supporting character in the Bond 24 ala Dench's M in SF.

    I'm more than happy about this, Fiennes is a terrific actor and his small role in SF was an exciting tease for great things to come. I know there are many purists on these forums that don't like the idea of M's role being increased significantly but I'm all for something new as long as it's done well like in SF. I recently saw Fiennes in 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and he was fantastic, he displayed the charm of David Niven and comedic talents of Peter Sellers. I really recommend the film. He's a very versatile performer. I hope Mendes and co don't waste him. Worrying hairline aside.

    27B2B508A-9F13-9224-2E18EA6F9E25B336.jpg
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,009
    I have a feeling both M and MP will play very active roles in B24 once more. I wouldn't see the point in Harris working out or training if she was just sitting at a desk looking pretty.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think it's clear from looking at Mendes's recent comments that Mallory will be a significant supporting character in the Bond 24 ala Dench's M in SF.

    I'm more than happy about this, Fiennes is a terrific actor and his small role in SF was an exciting tease for great things to come. I know there are many purists on these forums that don't like the idea of M's role being increased significantly but I'm all for something new as long as it's done well like in SF. I recently saw Fiennes in 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and he was fantastic, he displayed the charm of David Niven and comedic talents of Peter Sellers. I really recommend the film. He's a very versatile performer. I hope Mendes and co don't waste him. Worrying hairline aside.

    27B2B508A-9F13-9224-2E18EA6F9E25B336.jpg

    I posted a similar comment just a while ago re Fiennes in TGBH. He is excellent in it and saves it from being just another over stylised Wes Anderson movie. It actually made me think what a great Bond he could have been.

    It does actually make me slightly more relaxed about an expanded role for M in B24. As I've said before, little about SF impressed me, least of all the novelty of Dench as the 'Bond girl', but Fiennes is just so damn good, I think the prospect of him and Craig on screen together for some good meaty dialogue is quite exciting. Just hope Logan is up to the task.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,358
    I'm not worried. Bond is in good hands. Skyfall was the beginning of something new and exciting.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Murdock wrote:
    I'm not worried. Bond is in good hands. Skyfall was the beginning of something new and exciting.

    I thought that was what CR had given us...? I'm really hoping B 24 is a little closer to CR and , dare I say it, B 22, than SF.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,358
    Getafix wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    I'm not worried. Bond is in good hands. Skyfall was the beginning of something new and exciting.

    I thought that was what CR had given us...? I'm really hoping B 24 is a little closer to CR and , dare I say it, B 23, than SF.

    CR yes, but B24 will be a somewhat continuation of Skyfall. Hence my sentence and I agree. CR had a sleek film noir feel to it. Some more tension too.
  • Posts: 15,218
    I think it's clear from looking at Mendes's recent comments that Mallory will be a significant supporting character in the Bond 24 ala Dench's M in SF.

    I'm more than happy about this, Fiennes is a terrific actor and his small role in SF was an exciting tease for great things to come. I know there are many purists on these forums that don't like the idea of M's role being increased significantly but I'm all for something new as long as it's done well like in SF. I recently saw Fiennes in 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and he was fantastic, he displayed the charm of David Niven and comedic talents of Peter Sellers. I really recommend the film. He's a very versatile performer. I hope Mendes and co don't waste him. Worrying hairline aside.

    27B2B508A-9F13-9224-2E18EA6F9E25B336.jpg

    I do want M's role to increase, albeit not like it was with Judi Dench. M can easily be Mycroft to Bond's Sherlock. In the novel TB, he is the one deducing SPECTRE's plan. I hope we can see something similar in Bond 24 and following.

    In a way, it is not so much that M was overused during the Brosnan and Craig era, but it was not developed as it could have had before.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Ludovico wrote:
    I think it's clear from looking at Mendes's recent comments that Mallory will be a significant supporting character in the Bond 24 ala Dench's M in SF.

    I'm more than happy about this, Fiennes is a terrific actor and his small role in SF was an exciting tease for great things to come. I know there are many purists on these forums that don't like the idea of M's role being increased significantly but I'm all for something new as long as it's done well like in SF. I recently saw Fiennes in 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and he was fantastic, he displayed the charm of David Niven and comedic talents of Peter Sellers. I really recommend the film. He's a very versatile performer. I hope Mendes and co don't waste him. Worrying hairline aside.

    27B2B508A-9F13-9224-2E18EA6F9E25B336.jpg

    I do want M's role to increase, albeit not like it was with Judi Dench. M can easily be Mycroft to Bond's Sherlock. In the novel TB, he is the one deducing SPECTRE's plan. I hope we can see something similar in Bond 24 and following.

    In a way, it is not so much that M was overused during the Brosnan and Craig era, but it was not developed as it could have had before.

    Fair point. Dench got a lot of screen time but not necessarily for any good reason. If they can write a proper hefty part for Fiennes and use him well, then that could be really good.
  • Posts: 421
    Love coming back to this thread after a couple of weeks. It can be quiet as anything and then a couple of people will spark off a big discussion that lasts four pages.

    As far as I can assess, we're discussing the what to expect in terms of the style of the film on the back of recent comments given by Mendes. I don't want to fall into the trap of critiquing SF - but I do think it is worthwhile giving it consideration when building a wider picture for B24. I personally think it may provide some balance between the relative freshness of CR and the slickness of SF. Expect "clever" violence, deeper - even complicated - love/relationships, and dialogue that will make the best of whatever talent we have. On top of that, some classic action and solid (but not Deakinsesque) cinematography will feature heavily.

    Re Mendes' most recent comments, I'm surprised that its "still being written" if shooting is supposed to start in October/November. What I think he means, is that it is going through rewrites before anything else is confirmed in terms of casting/shooting locations. The story will be there. Hell, one or two drafts of a script may have been produced... I just get the sense that Mendes is trying to excel himself (the only reason he came back to Bond, remember) and fix any "holes in the boat".
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    edited May 2014 Posts: 4,346
    I recently saw Fiennes in 'The Grand Budapest Hotel' and he was fantastic, he displayed the charm of David Niven and comedic talents of Peter Sellers. I really recommend the film. He's a very versatile performer. I hope Mendes and co don't waste him. Worrying hairline aside.

    I have been waiting for someone to comment on "The Grand Budapest Hotel", because it has another significant link to the Bond universe: there is a long (though a bit unusual) action sequence in there paying homage to FYEO and OHMSS. I was amazed that nobody had commented on it so far, but maybe I missed it. It's a very entertaining film and I recommend it highly!
  • M wasn't in any danger at all, so why guard her? (...)The point you are forgetting is that Silva doesn't want to kill her.
    I'm afraid you mean that all the characters in the movie should act as if they all had the viewer's foresight. It's "movie logic" to claim everyone knew M's wasn't in danger after a terrorist attack on her after a personal warning on her personal laptop, because viewers knew Silva didn't want to kill her before meeting her. It's not "airtight" logic.

    You and Ludovico try to teach us that you know how these things would happen in the "real world" as if you were expert in real word espionage... So much arrogance to try to "prove" that Skyfall's chain of events is realistic !? It's as much wishful thinking as saying that going from a 2-movie story arc to a standalone movie is a minor change :)

    Come on ! One more MI6-based example : when Bond is captured by Silva, Silva proves him that he has access to MI6's secret files that had just been created on the new "secure" network : he reads him his secret exam reports. When Silva is back, is the network being checked to ensure the security breach is closed ? No, after a terrorist attack on the previous MI6 HQ based on security breach of the network, after the reveal that the new HQ network have also been compromised, it's still a HQ where Silva can make all the doors open because Q plugs his laptop...

    I just watched the excellent X-Men Days of Future Past. At least now I know how Silva could escape his jail after the door opening despite the guard. His real name is Raoul Quicksilva.
    In fact, it's not unusual for there to be revisions to a script once filming gets under away.

    And therefore you get a typical movie script with movie plot holes, not the "superb airtight script" some watched here.

    I just checked. In the 74 nominations Skyfall got for various awards, it seems there was 0 nominations for the screenplay or the script. I'm afraid it's only here one can read it was a strength of the movie. Put a John Glen in bad shape at the helm of this script, everyone would dismiss it I think...

  • edited May 2014 Posts: 7,507
    I find this trend of overanalyzing Bond plots or characters in general to be at best unecessary, at worst pathetique. These films/novels are not ment to be analyzed, they're ment to be enjoyed. Am I not stating the obvious here? It seems unfair that a Bond film that tries to shake up things and give the story and characters more substance is being massacred for every little detail that is not perfectly thought out. And that goes for every film in the franchise. Either you like them or you don't, but nitpicking gets you nowhere, because there will allways be something to nitpick.

    But I'll add some new (unecessary) short (I don't bother going into detail with this) thoughts to the discussion:

    The claims that Skyfall supposedly has been put on a pedestal over any other Bond film, where do they stem from? Certain movie critiques probably have, but I don't think it speaks for many Bond fans overall, or most of the members on this forum. Skyfall is viewed, and should be viewed, as just another Bond film. A slightly different Bond film maybe, but a Bond film. The problem here seems not to be that Skyfall is overrated (how often to we see it get praised here enyway?), more that it's being attacked and howled at with arguments of questionable purpose, rational or relevance.

    The film might have certain generic "blockbuster tropes" and short cuts, but so what? Really, so what?

    The film has sparked a new era in Bond, an recruited many new Bond fans. Shouldn't that be viewed as a good thing after all?

    But as some has hinted already, this is the time to draw a line on this discussion, or, if its really necessary (sigh...), move it to another thread.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 2,015
    jobo wrote:
    The claims that Skyfall supposedly has been put on a pedestal over any other Bond film, where do they stem from?

    Write that you think that Skyfall is as full of plotholes and weird character behaviours as Die Another Day, and see what happens :) As I wrote above, only here the script seems to be considered top notch by some... but they are very vocal. It seems that for some you just need to have some dialogs in pensive mood to make a script "profound" ! Maybe watching many French films have vaccinated me from that :)

    And we know the original script for Bond24 was not liked by Mendes...

  • Posts: 6,396
    In fact, it's not unusual for there to be revisions to a script once filming gets under away.

    And therefore you get a typical movie script with movie plot holes, not the "superb airtight script" some watched here.

    I just checked. In the 74 nominations Skyfall got for various awards, it seems there was 0 nominations for the screenplay or the script. I'm afraid it's only here one can read it was a strength of the movie. Put a John Glen in bad shape at the helm of this script, everyone would dismiss it I think...

    I've not made any reference to Skyfall. I was conversing with @bondsum about Bond 24. This isn't a Skyfall thread.
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 2,015
    I've not made any reference to Skyfall. I was conversing with @bondsum about Bond 24. This isn't a Skyfall thread.

    Mendes and Logan previous work was on Skyfall. Mendes has explained Bond 24 would continue on the themes of Skyfall. Mendes said the original work of Logan for Bond 24 was not to his taste, so it's interesting to discuss in Skyfall where the script flaws were, and which scenes were created more by the director than by the author (ie : scenes that work well as individual scenes, but throw away the plot). Ignoring it to discuss Bond 24 is a bit weird.

    For instance, the DB5 in Skyfall is a director's dream, even though it makes what happens on screen at that moment look like some time travel paradox in Dr Who. I think we can expect such things in Bond 24 too. Mendes said he liked that scene a lot.
  • Posts: 6,396
    I've not made any reference to Skyfall. I was conversing with @bondsum about Bond 24. This isn't a Skyfall thread.

    Mendes and Logan previous work was on Skyfall. Mendes has explained Bond 24 woudl continue on the themes of Skyfall. Ignoring it to discuss Bond 24 is a bit weird.

    Yes the "themes" of SF. Not the "plot" of SF. The two really are quite different.
    M wasn't in any danger at all, so why guard her? (...)The point you are forgetting is that Silva doesn't want to kill her.
    I'm afraid you mean that all the characters in the movie should act as if they all had the viewer's foresight. It's "movie logic" to claim everyone knew M's wasn't in danger after a terrorist attack on her after a personal warning on her personal laptop, because viewers knew Silva didn't want to kill her before meeting her. It's not "airtight" logic.

    You and Ludovico try to teach us that you know how these things would happen in the "real world" as if you were expert in real word espionage... So much arrogance to try to "prove" that Skyfall's chain of events is realistic !? It's as much wishful thinking as saying that going from a 2-movie story arc to a standalone movie is a minor change :)

    Come on ! One more MI6-based example : when Bond is captured by Silva, Silva proves him that he has access to MI6's secret files that had just been created on the new "secure" network : he reads him his secret exam reports. When Silva is back, is the network being checked to ensure the security breach is closed ? No, after a terrorist attack on the previous MI6 HQ based on security breach of the network, after the reveal that the new HQ network have also been compromised, it's still a HQ where Silva can make all the doors open because Q plugs his laptop...

    I just watched the excellent X-Men Days of Future Past. At least now I know how Silva could escape his jail after the door opening despite the guard. His real name is Raoul Quicksilva.
    In fact, it's not unusual for there to be revisions to a script once filming gets under away.

    And therefore you get a typical movie script with movie plot holes, not the "superb airtight script" some watched here.

    I just checked. In the 74 nominations Skyfall got for various awards, it seems there was 0 nominations for the screenplay or the script. I'm afraid it's only here one can read it was a strength of the movie. Put a John Glen in bad shape at the helm of this script, everyone would dismiss it I think...

    Where in this post are your discussing Bond 24? I see references to the security of M's home and the lack of award nominations for SF script.
  • Where in this post are your discussing Bond 24? I see references to the security of M's home and the lack of award nominations for SF script.

    You missed the part where I explain that going from a 2-story movie arc to a standalone movie is not a minor change. Some posts I reply to have strictly zero Bond 24 content though indeed, I hope you'll make the policeman for them too :)
  • edited May 2014 Posts: 6,601
    If THIS is what we can expect once 24 get rolling, :-(

    I, for one, have decided, that I would TRY to not fall into tha rap again - this

    "I am right"
    No, I wanna be righter"
    Gosh, folks, who else, but me is right?

    Its incredibly tiring and I know, I have been guilty of it, but boy, its not fun. Put this together with the landslide of trolls, this side will have.... 8-X
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Are Bond fans getting more tiring than Doctor Who fans? I think they might be.
Sign In or Register to comment.