SPECTRE Production Timeline

1230231233235236870

Comments

  • I don't think it's very likely, but maybe Joanne Froggatt is just going to have a small role as Mary Goodnight, Bond's secretary. I hope that if she is in the film that its some small role like that and not a lead love interest because frankly she isn't pretty enough...
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 2,189
    Repost
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I recall that hotel receptionist in Casino Royale... pretty indeed, but she had no idea what she was doing and it was annoying.

    Care to elaborate on this because I don't know what you're talking about here. She was a receptionist and the actress competently performed the part well. Nothing profound or artistically revealing is to be expected from such a simple and minor role. What was so bad about her that annoyed you?

    She seemed very self-aware, like she was busy trying to sell herself, and for those few seconds that did annoy me. If you're cast as a hotel receptionist than be one, I think she was actually posing for a while, and it's not because she was charmed by Bond.

    Umm no... I have the same problem every freakin' time I travel.. its annoying :P
    I actually thought her performance was spot on... I see your point but the subtext of that scene is good.. interested but never crossing line with guest ..knowing there is more to Bond's motives but playing alone etc... at least the way I saw the scene.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 2,115


    Food for thought. Below is a link to the October 2011 story when Skyfall's title surfaced via checking registered domain names. Possible that Bond 24's title could come out soon through similar means? We'll see.


    http://fusible.com/2011/10/new-james-bond-film-to-be-titled-skyfall-domain-names-privately-registered/
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    edited September 2014 Posts: 432

    Food for thought. Below is a link to the October 2011 story when Skyfall's title surfaced via checking registered domain names. Possible that Bond 24's title could come out soon through similar means? We'll see.


    http://fusible.com/2011/10/new-james-bond-film-to-be-titled-skyfall-domain-names-privately-registered/

    I hope so. If it does happen, it shouldn't be that much longer to wait for a title.
  • Posts: 9,843
    The same thing happened to quantum of solace
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Now we only need to do a proper check-up on:
    --> Risico
    --> The Hildebrand Rarity
    --> 007 In New York, &
    --> The Property Of A Lady
    Just to rule those four titles out...:-P
  • If you look at some of the leaked storyboard artwork from 'Skyfall' you will know that the film had that working title since around April 2012. I wouldn't be surprised if the title for Bond 24 has been decided and the domain has been registered. Is there anyone on these forums who knows how to check whether domain names have been registered?
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 9,843
    I just checked 3 of the 4 short story titles nothing too interesting to report shame i was hoping Risico or The Hildebrand Rarity would of gone back to 007.com
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    I would be fine with any of the existing Fleming titles except 007 in New York. That's the one that I don't think would fit as a film title. Although I get the feeling that it's going to be an original title for Bond 24.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    007 in New York as a movie title sounds like a B nay...C - list movie.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    007 in New York/HBR will never be used as a title- doesn't even warrant discussion.
    To be honest, I don't see them going with Risico or PoaL, either.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    doubleoego wrote: »
    007 in New York as a movie title sounds like a B nay...C - list movie.

    I agree. It sounds more like a parody movie.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    007 in New York as a movie title sounds like a B nay...C - list movie.

    They'll never use it as a film title.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    And thank heavens for that.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Walecs wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    007 in New York as a movie title sounds like a B nay...C - list movie.


    Or soft porn alpine movie "Octopussy"
    Or Stephen Hawking's essay in "Quantum Of Solace".

    Many of Fleming's titles were quite doubtful in nature or dubious. So perhaps for that reason "007 In New York" actually is the best :-).
    I agree. It sounds more like a parody movie.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    'Octopussy' is a great title! Very much of the 'benign bizarre' in nature, yet retaining that peculiar Bondian element.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    So perhaps for that reason "007 In New York" actually is the best :-).

    It's certainly the most 'to the point', shall we say. Unlike QoS, which always feels overtly pretentious, something Fleming never was.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    Walecs wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    007 in New York as a movie title sounds like a B nay...C - list movie.


    Or soft porn alpine movie "Octopussy"
    Or Stephen Hawking's essay in "Quantum Of Solace".

    Many of Fleming's titles were quite doubtful in nature or dubious. So perhaps for that reason "007 In New York" actually is the best :-).
    I agree. It sounds more like a parody movie.

    I disagree. I think that QoS is a marvelous title and makes completely sense with the plot of the short story and the movie.
  • 007 In New York makes me think of some teen travel book series, they might as well call it 'Bond's jolly adventures in New York' , it doesn't work.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Walecs wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    007 in New York as a movie title sounds like a B nay...C - list movie.


    Or soft porn alpine movie "Octopussy"
    Or Stephen Hawking's essay in "Quantum Of Solace".

    Many of Fleming's titles were quite doubtful in nature or dubious. So perhaps for that reason "007 In New York" actually is the best :-).
    I agree. It sounds more like a parody movie.

    I disagree. I think that QoS is a marvelous title and makes completely sense with the plot of the short story and the movie.

    Agreed. If only they had the confidence to let the title stand alone on its own merits instead of clumsily naming the criminal organisation 'Quantum' so that the title made a semblance of sense to the moronic masses out there.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    Walecs wrote: »
    Walecs wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    007 in New York as a movie title sounds like a B nay...C - list movie.


    Or soft porn alpine movie "Octopussy"
    Or Stephen Hawking's essay in "Quantum Of Solace".

    Many of Fleming's titles were quite doubtful in nature or dubious. So perhaps for that reason "007 In New York" actually is the best :-).
    I agree. It sounds more like a parody movie.

    I disagree. I think that QoS is a marvelous title and makes completely sense with the plot of the short story and the movie.

    Agreed. If only they had the confidence to let the title stand alone on its own merits instead of clumsily naming the criminal organisation 'Quantum' so that the title made a semblance of sense to the moronic masses out there.

    Yes, same with naming the Newspaper for Tomorrow in TND. There is something special about the Fleming titles and SF could fool anyone to think it's from him.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 2,598
    "Former James Bond actor Sir Roger Moore does not agree that Daniel Craig's interpretation of 007 should be throwing in jokes to lighten up the current films.

    "I don’t think there’s time for humour in the ones that I’ve seen with Daniel Craig. He moves so fast and the action is so good, there’s been no time for jokes," he told Yahoo Movies.

    "I’ve heard that they possibly are inserting a few throwaway lines into ‘Bond 24’ but I don’t think it matters because he’s just so damned good.""


    Wow, someone who finally feels the same way about the humour as I do! :) They just shouldn't have throw away lines in the Craig films as Craig isn't particularly good at them coupled with the fact that they have no place in what will otherwise be a darker film. The two just don't mix. Casino Royale was a superior film to Skyfall, one reason being that the humour was in a more natural, realistic style which harmonised with Craig's acting style and the rest of the dark tone of the film. It's too bad that they don't have the balls to make a series of Bond films with Craig all in the same tone with the same style humour as Casino Royale. It's always just the same, lethargic formula.

    When they replace Craig with someone who is good with the one liners like Moore and Connery and the films once again revolve around comedy like in the Moore era and the latter Connery films, then by all means, go back to the cheesiness. The Craig films have no place for cheese and this will certainly hinder my enjoyment of Bond 24 which is why I'm just not looking really looking that forward to it. They're starting to become too multifaceted again like in the Brosnan movies but thankfully to a lesser extent. Consistency is being thrown out the window and being replaced with a cocktail of tackiness.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    To be fair, Craig 's one liners weren't that many in SF and they were good For the most part but I agree; the humour should be kept in the more natural and more befitting tone of CR. Trying to shoehorn jokes and humour only comes off as forced and often cringe-worthy.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Bounine wrote: »
    "Former James Bond actor Sir Roger Moore does not agree that Daniel Craig's interpretation of 007 should be throwing in jokes to lighten up the current films.

    "I don’t think there’s time for humour in the ones that I’ve seen with Daniel Craig. He moves so fast and the action is so good, there’s been no time for jokes," he told Yahoo Movies.

    "I’ve heard that they possibly are inserting a few throwaway lines into ‘Bond 24’ but I don’t think it matters because he’s just so damned good.""


    Wow, someone who finally feels the same way about the humour as I do! :) They just shouldn't have throw away lines in the Craig films as Craig isn't particularly good at them coupled with the fact that they have no place in what will otherwise be a darker film. The two just don't mix. Casino Royale was a superior film to Skyfall, one reason being that the humour was in a more natural, realistic style which harmonised with Craig's acting style and the rest of the dark tone of the film. It's too bad that they don't have the balls to make a series of Bond films with Craig all in the same tone with the same style humour as Casino Royale. It's always just the same, lethargic formula.

    When they replace Craig with someone who is good with the one liners like Moore and Connery and the films once again revolve around comedy like in the Moore era and the latter Connery films, then by all means, go back to the cheesiness. The Craig films have no place for cheese and this will certainly hinder my enjoyment of Bond 24 which is why I'm just not looking really looking that forward to it. They're starting to become too multifaceted again like in the Brosnan movies but thankfully to a lesser extent. Consistency is being thrown out the window and being replaced with a cocktail of tackiness.
    Apart from the Beretta line in the shower with Severine, which admittedly feels a bit like Daniel Craig quoting Alan Partridge, I can´t recall any supposedly funny one-liners from Craig. What irritated me more was stuff such as Q´s quote about exploding pens.
    Actually Craig can do really good one-liners. Him saying to Le Chifre, "Now we wouldn´t want that." after Le Chifre saying he´s confused about Bond´s name is on par with Connery´s best lines.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I watched SF again recently and I'd forgotten what a clunker the 'deep water' line is. Really throws you for a second. I hope Mendes doesn't persist with these little Moore-esque flourishes. I'm Moore's biggest fan, but this is Craig. Leave him to what he does best.
  • edited September 2014 Posts: 2,598
    For me, the "do hope that wasn't for me" line is by far the worst.

    If Craig just kills someone then utters a one line clanker it will just seem out of place. He just doesn't seem like the sort of Bond who would do this based on what we learnt about him in CR and QOS. It'll mess things up I reckon, and the overall quality of the film will suffer. Unfortunately it sounds like they'll do just this. For me, the one liners sounded so out of place in SF based on the otherwise dark tone of the film and what we learnt about this Bond's darker personality in CR and QOS.

    "We wouldn't want that" was one of the bad lines from CR. No Bond film is perfect. Atleast there was no one liner following the death of someone in these two films.

    "She's sea sick" was a bad one from QOS.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    I watched SF again recently and I'd forgotten what a clunker the 'deep water' line is. Really throws you for a second. I hope Mendes doesn't persist with these little Moore-esque flourishes. I'm Moore's biggest fan, but this is Craig. Leave him to what he does best.

    I personally think, one of the biggest problems why the humor in the Craig films, and especially "Skyfall", doesn't work, has to do with the overall screenplay writing process.

    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity.

    Many lines are so perfectly well-thought of. And I guess each of every screenplay writer is putting so much attention to detail for especially the more "poetic" lines in Craig's films. Remember the prickly conversation in "Casino Royale" between Bond and Vesper in the Orient Express TGV, when they first meet (typical Paul Haggis)? Truly wunderful. Or M's oration of Tennyson's poem in "Skyfall" (Logan's talent as playwright shows here wunderfully!)?

    BUT, this almost "arty" attention to detail, its almost "playwright-esque" way of writing has got its side-effects on the spontaneity of lines (especially communication between characters in the films).

    I see it for instance in simple scenes, like the first ever Moneypenny-scene for Craig as 007. So many more lines could have been uttered between Moneypenny and Bond, including some nice sexual inuendo ;-). But in the end the screenplay writers (and this goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig too. Craig himself is a unofficial creative consultant as well, and still no Bond fan is mentioning that. Babs & Michael adore him) preferred to maintain a more "visual" image of the scene, in which Moneypenny is carefully, almost too carefully, introduced too us. The net result is a great visual style, but the scene also comes across as rather stiff & humorless.

    Hence the overall lack of humor on the whole in the Craig films. Perhaps they have become a bit too Nolan-esque, too serious.

    So I think humor can still be added, but it depends on the writing process how that will be executed. This is, IMO, a pure writing thing, and I therefore don't believe that "we should leave away all humor". Don't forget that this is most likely the reason that John Logan left as screenplay writer and that this time around Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to carefully polish the screenplay, so that it has more "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text, and therefore also more "humor".

    Remember, the first two Connery Bond films were also very serious. They were also more cold-hearted in its core. Then "Goldfinger" came and things changed. Although Connery was a bit against turning Bond into comedy, his acting skills proved that he uttered all these one-liners, within the context of conversations, perfectly. And with it...."humor" got its true meaning in the Bond franchise.

    Bond 24 most likely will make us laugh much more ;-).

    PS: I still think that elderly couple in "Skyfall" in the metro tube were hilarious: "He's keen to get home :-O!"
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I watched SF again recently and I'd forgotten what a clunker the 'deep water' line is. Really throws you for a second. I hope Mendes doesn't persist with these little Moore-esque flourishes. I'm Moore's biggest fan, but this is Craig. Leave him to what he does best.

    I personally think, one of the biggest problems why the humor in the Craig films, and especially "Skyfall", doesn't work, has to do with the overall screenplay writing process.

    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity.

    Many lines are so perfectly well-thought of. And I guess each of every screenplay writer is putting so much attention to detail for especially the more "poetic" lines in Craig's films. Remember the prickly conversation in "Casino Royale" between Bond and Vesper in the Orient Express TGV, when they first meet (typical Paul Haggis)? Truly wunderful. Or M's oration of Tennyson's poem in "Skyfall" (Logan's talent as playwright shows here wunderfully!)?

    BUT, this almost "arty" attention to detail, its almost "playwright-esque" way of writing has got its side-effects on the spontaneity of lines (especially communication between characters in the films).

    I see it for instance in simple scenes, like the first ever Moneypenny-scene for Craig as 007. So many more lines could have been uttered between Moneypenny and Bond, including some nice sexual inuendo ;-). But in the end the screenplay writers (and this goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig too. Craig himself is a unofficial creative consultant as well, and still no Bond fan is mentioning that. Babs & Michael adore him) preferred to maintain a more "visual" image of the scene, in which Moneypenny is carefully, almost too carefully, introduced too us. The net result is a great visual style, but the scene also comes across as rather stiff & humorless.

    Hence the overall lack of humor on the whole in the Craig films. Perhaps they have become a bit too Nolan-esque, too serious.

    So I think humor can still be added, but it depends on the writing process how that will be executed. This is, IMO, a pure writing thing, and I therefore don't believe that "we should leave away all humor". Don't forget that this is most likely the reason that John Logan left as screenplay writer and that this time around Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to carefully polish the screenplay, so that it has more "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text, and therefore also more "humor".

    Remember, the first two Connery Bond films were also very serious. They were also more cold-hearted in its core. Then "Goldfinger" came and things changed. Although Connery was a bit against turning Bond into comedy, his acting skills proved that he uttered all these one-liners, within the context of conversations, perfectly. And with it...."humor" got its true meaning in the Bond franchise.

    Bond 24 most likely will make us laugh much more ;-).

    PS: I still think that elderly couple in "Skyfall" in the metro tube were hilarious: "He's keen to get home :-O!"

    I think what you're trying to say is, tailor the humour to Craig (as it is in CR and QoS). There are too many instances of Moore-Bond wit in SF and it takes you out of the movie.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I watched SF again recently and I'd forgotten what a clunker the 'deep water' line is. Really throws you for a second. I hope Mendes doesn't persist with these little Moore-esque flourishes. I'm Moore's biggest fan, but this is Craig. Leave him to what he does best.

    I personally think, one of the biggest problems why the humor in the Craig films, and especially "Skyfall", doesn't work, has to do with the overall screenplay writing process.

    Everytime I think the screenplays of the Craig films are perfect, but perhaps too perfect. If it is Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, John Logan or Robert Wade, it seems that on many occasions the screenplays lack -and here it comes-: spontaneity.

    Many lines are so perfectly well-thought of. And I guess each of every screenplay writer is putting so much attention to detail for especially the more "poetic" lines in Craig's films. Remember the prickly conversation in "Casino Royale" between Bond and Vesper in the Orient Express TGV, when they first meet (typical Paul Haggis)? Truly wunderful. Or M's oration of Tennyson's poem in "Skyfall" (Logan's talent as playwright shows here wunderfully!)?

    BUT, this almost "arty" attention to detail, its almost "playwright-esque" way of writing has got its side-effects on the spontaneity of lines (especially communication between characters in the films).

    I see it for instance in simple scenes, like the first ever Moneypenny-scene for Craig as 007. So many more lines could have been uttered between Moneypenny and Bond, including some nice sexual inuendo ;-). But in the end the screenplay writers (and this goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig too. Craig himself is a unofficial creative consultant as well, and still no Bond fan is mentioning that. Babs & Michael adore him) preferred to maintain a more "visual" image of the scene, in which Moneypenny is carefully, almost too carefully, introduced too us. The net result is a great visual style, but the scene also comes across as rather stiff & humorless.

    Hence the overall lack of humor on the whole in the Craig films. Perhaps they have become a bit too Nolan-esque, too serious.

    So I think humor can still be added, but it depends on the writing process how that will be executed. This is, IMO, a pure writing thing, and I therefore don't believe that "we should leave away all humor". Don't forget that this is most likely the reason that John Logan left as screenplay writer and that this time around Neal Purvis & Robert Wade are the ones to carefully polish the screenplay, so that it has more "spontaneity", more vivid lines, words and text, and therefore also more "humor".

    Remember, the first two Connery Bond films were also very serious. They were also more cold-hearted in its core. Then "Goldfinger" came and things changed. Although Connery was a bit against turning Bond into comedy, his acting skills proved that he uttered all these one-liners, within the context of conversations, perfectly. And with it...."humor" got its true meaning in the Bond franchise.

    Bond 24 most likely will make us laugh much more ;-).

    PS: I still think that elderly couple in "Skyfall" in the metro tube were hilarious: "He's keen to get home :-O!"

    I think what you're trying to say is, tailor the humour to Craig (as it is in CR and QoS). There are too many instances of Moore-Bond wit in SF and it takes you out of the movie.

    It's not fair to call the one liners in SF "Moore-Bond wit". The worst of Moores one liners still beats the crap out of anything Craig (or just about everybody else) gets to say in SF.
Sign In or Register to comment.