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
I sincerely hope that it is a step up from SF as it was as unbelievable as an invisible car with the amount of plot holes being covered by "cool" stuff. Tennyson would be doing cartwheels in his grave being abused in such an poor movie when the franchise boasts better material.
The Gun Barrel at the begin please as there was no excuse for Mendes either just being arty farty.
With Mendes and Logan around for the next Bondmovie my hopes are that the year offers other good cinematic outing as I might just need them as support to get over this one.
And I am sorry for DC he deserves a better movie as the last two.
...on second thought, that would be a cause for concern. ;)
We are not amused.
I am sure he wants to forget about it. I certainly would.
I find it far more.plausible that Logan said that he was less interested by big movies because he already did a lot and wants to do something different, such as... Theatre work.
As for Logan's contribution to Bond 24, I would not find it catastrophic if it was less important than with SF, for reasons I stated before.
The only things I could read between the lines here are that (1) Logan might have been annoyed that the two story arc (which I think he'd advocated) has been dropped and presumably he's had to write an entirely new script. That would make me pretty annoyed and certainly draw me towards theatre, where the playwright is not generally asked to rewrite their entire script by the director at the last minute. In theatre, the script tends to be a bit more sacrosanct.
The other thing (2) is that Logan is drawn to TV because of the scope it provides to tell a slower, bigger and more rounded story. Was it any coincidence that he was therefore advocating a 2 story film arc for B24/25?
So, it seems clear, he wants to tell bigger and more complex stories, and he is perhaps sick of the endless rewrites and meddling that a writer for film almost inevitably has to deal with.
You only have to look at recent high profile bust-ups between director and screenwriter (such as 12 Years a Slave, and some similar issues on Belle) to see how badly rewrites can strain relations between key players on a movie. I'm not saying Logan and Mendes have fallen out - there is nothing here that suggests this - but it is not hard to imagine that Logan is a bit jaded by this whole 'process', where he was commissioned to do one thing and then super star Sam finally agrees to take on the gig and gets to tell John he has to rewrite everything.
This point is being raised time in and time again as though it is some undeniable fact. It's starting to piss me off. What can we possibly know about the details of those scripts, both the original 2 film story and the new one? Why is it impossible that both can be based on basically the same story arch and themes? Why should we assume the story has been completely rewritten beyond recognition? How do we know Logan is dissapointed with the new script and Mendes' input? Their history would indicate they indeed enjoy working together and benifit from each other's inspiration, influence and ideas.
I don't think it's far fetched to say this. It's based on the facts we have to hand.
May be Logan was happy to do this and as you say, enjoyed having an intelligent director to knock ideas around with, but it doesn't negate the fact that quite a lot of hard work has probably had to be binned.
Yes, people are speculating - that's a lot of what we do on here. So keep calm and ignore the thread until some real news arrives if this sort of thing annoys you.
However, what most of you seem to speculate... well, not really speculate, more so claim as a fact... is that Logan has had to scrap all his original ideas and write a new script from scratch.
I think these musing are being taken a bit too seriously. I am speculating about what might be going on. I and some others find it entertaining to guess at what might be going on behind the scenes. No one is required to agree with what we're saying. Yes you are right, little is known for sure, but there is enough in the public domain to come up with some interesting theories.
Now regarding the two films story arc intrinsically, as I mentioned before, it would have been a huge gamble. If Bond 24 is a critical failure, or has mixes reviews, or mixes success at the BO (i.e. if it disappoints in any way) you are stuck with a second movie nobody wants, or at least that starts on the very wrong foot, before being even shot. It depends how it is done, obviously, but it is a huge gamble and you have a movie that may not stand on its own. The closest things we had to a two movies story arc were DN and FRWL, and CR and QOS. The first one was almost an accidental arc and both movies are independent from one another, while the latter has CR that stands on QOS which plot is a sort of followup to CR... Incidentally, QOS is also a very controversial movie in the series. I happen to love it, but I wouldn't want to risk Bond 25 (or even 24) to be the same.
So I am glad they focus on one movie. Which does not mean said movie cannot have an open ending and loose ends that may be used in Bond 25 or others. Regarding the changes to the script, we don't know if it meant cramming two movies into one (which I doubt and which we have no evidence about), or taking away a lot of what would make or lead to Bond 25.
The issues I'm seeing are with Bond 25. I feel like Bond 24 likely remained the same with Mendes coming on board, just few things that would tie into Bond 25 would have to be moved or taken out for the story to be more focused. I feel like Bond 24 will still end up similar to what it would have been with a two story arc. The issue comes with how to end Bond 24.. if you leave loose ends you have to at least keep Logan to finish up the story on Bond 25, Mendes or not. But then the issue is, if you get another bigheaded, big name director like Nolan, or Refn for Bond 25, they're not going to want to finish up on Mendes' open ended 24.
It will be interesting to see how they do it. I doubt they'll leave 24 with too many loose strings if Mendes isn't already signed to come back for 25.
Well, maybe Eon let the diretor/writer do their thing now but didn't these movies used to be very producer driven atleast when A.R. Broccolli was in charge?
I wonder how many re-writes Logan has been asked to do on Bond 24 by Mendes then, and are they for the better? I liked alot of what Mendes did with Skyfall but there were certain things he didn't do well, like the corny, less than natural ending when Bond says "I don't think we've been formally introduced" and then Eve introduces herself. This scene could have been done alot better such as a new employee coming up to Penny's office asking for some files and asking if she was Moneypenny. Also, the Aston Martin having gadgets was stupid. There's no way in this modern timeline that Q branch would have installed gadgets in an old car like this. My favourite model Aston in TLD shouldn't have had gadgets either. I wish this whole snow chase scene in TLD had have been without gadgets and that corny ending to the scene where they use the cello case to get away. Then there was the Craig one liners in SF which just didn't really work as Craig just isn't that good at them. He's a great Bond but he's not particulary good at these. The humour in CR and more so, QOS, was much better than a good part of SF's comedy.
That's quite a long time ago now! I think one thing that has very clearly been missing since Cubby's departure (which in terms of the actual films, probably means since LTK) is a clear guiding hand from the producers. May be that's partly because MGW and Babs are too collegiate and neither one really imposes a very clear vision. I think the casting of Craig was a masterstroke though, and perhaps the actor is more important these days in terms of determining the tone and direction of the films.
I agree regarding MP. I didn't feel her intro was very well handled. It was a bit muddled, and just not very classy. But that sums up my view of the whole film, which I thought was well intentioned but just not very well executed on so many levels.
I'm afraid I'm a huge TLD fan, so won't hear anything said against the Vantage or the chase - I love it all! But totally agree that the tone of CR and QoS suited DC much better. I am all for humour, but the Roger-esque gags in SF just seemed to sit a little uneasily with DC, like they'd been bolted on to the movie. I've reached the point where I think that 'jokes' don't really suit him. He is better at doing wry humour, where the comedy is inherant in the situation. The intro of Vesper and their conversation on the train was a highlight of the Craig era for me. It's not exactly classic dialogue, but two really good actors just wring every last drop of fun and innuendo out of it and it really works. Apart from Silva's entry and some the exchanges on the island, most of the dialogue in SF just fell really flat for me. Again, a lot of it was well intentioned, but just lacks some spark on the screen. I like to think it was P+W's fault, but having watched a few Logan scripted films recently (and bits of Penny Dreadful), I've come to realise he is actually very hit and miss.
Speaking of Penny Dreadful, I saw some scenes with Rory Kinnear and thought he was awful as Frankenstein's monster. I'm beginning to wonder what is so amazing about him. I find his Tanner completely bland and forgetable. When you think back through the history of Bond it is so full of memorable small acting parts, made iconic by a great performances. Kinnear just seems to bring nothing to the screen whatsoever.
Natural humour that evolves from conversations and such is more Craig and Dalton's style. Dalton delivered the one liners with a sense of urgency which suited him.
I love TLD too but I just wish the chase had have been done without the gadgets. Having said that, that car looks a lot more modern than the DB5 even though it's only around 4 years older (isn't it?).
I get where you're coming from. In some ways it sits uneasily with the new Dalton tone. But the Moore-esque hangovers in TLD are some of the things I actually really enjoy. I think Tim handles it all very well.
I'm not an expert on the Astons. But I think that Vantage is about 12 to 15 years later than the DB5. I also love the car in OHMSS, which looks like a transition between the two.
The DB5 is obviously an absolute stunner, but its appeal has really been ruined for me by it being wheeled out in every other film since GE. I think we've finally seen the back of it now though. At least until the next reboot...
I still enjoyed that car chase but the cello case/slay ride scene does bother me. It's my only real problem with otherwise a wondeful film. This scene is too much in the vein of the Moore films. I'm glad they cut out the magic carpet ride.
I think Tim can do "humour" well. His mocking line "sorry old man, section 36 paragraph 5...need to know", is perfectly handled. However I disagree about Tim handling Moore-style "jokes", which I don't think suit him AT ALL. I didn't even smile at his "better make that two" line or "he got the BOOT" or "he met his Waterloo".\They sound flat to me.
I DID smile at "I know a great restaurant in Karachi, we could just make dinner", those types of lines work better for him and sound more natural coming out of his mouth.
The problem with the Moore-style stuff is that I didn't feel Tim WOULD say those lines. He's not the Moore sort. They were just there because the audience expected them.
Btw the DB5 wasn't in TWINE, DAD or QoS.
Yes, I know, but it was in every other one, which is quite a lot. GE, TND, CR, SF. I.e too much. I can't blame Mendes for not having bothered to watch the Brosnan films, but he talks about his use of the DB5 as if it hadn't already been used (much more intelligently IMO) in CR.
I like to think of its appearance in TND as a sort of cameo as its not really used in the main story.
Maybe it should be ejected from Bond 24 though. I love the DB5 but it should really be a treat that only comes out on special occasions.
True, but it's still in there.
I'm not really sure it works. The line doesn't even match his lip movements and was obviously added in afterwards. That distracts me a bit too.
Its a small issue though as i think most of his performance in TLD is solid.
Would a serious spy like Dalton, who's meant to be a more realistic figure, honestly say something like "looks like he came to a dead end" after seeing someone brutally impaled on a forklift or spout a one-liner before narrowly stopping a plane from crashing? I don't think he would. Moore might.
Like I said, I think the other humorous lines were appropriate. Just not the "quips".
I agree that he handled the humour very well - just takes it in his stride and doesn't visibly struggle against it, as DC does sometimes. But some of the humour in TLD (the cello case) is very much reminiscent of the Moore era. It's definitely not something you'd have seen Connery doing. For me, that's not actually a bad thing though.