SPECTRE Production Timeline

1286287289291292870

Comments

  • Posts: 5,745
    Bounine wrote: »
    "Of the character and the dos-and-don'ts of scripting for 007, Butterworth comments, "You know, like Bond doesn't have scenes with other men. Bond shoots other men - he doesn't sit around chatting to them. So you put a line through that.""

    Good God. More bad news. Sounds like all the dialogue and character driven scenes are being flushed down the toilet for action, action and more action. These films will never change. Action is fine and is part of Bond but why they won't take a little time out for some decent dialogue driven scenes is beyond me. They'll never change. So, now we have Moneypenny back in the field, what sounds like more humour than in SF and CR, unnecessary throwaway lines and now this. Not looking good. What Newman had said before most of his stuff was probably re-written in favour of endless, pointless acton, was encouraging. He was all for further developing Bond's character. Now however, I just can't see this happening. Just more of the same. I don't know why I bother actually thinking that we might get something a little different for once.

    So ONE comment by ONE writer who only spent ONE week on the film, and you're writing it off. I fail to see how it is productive to get so worked up over such little detail.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Mark my words, Christopher Nolan will be the one to deliver the first truly GREAT Bond script ever. It will be written by a guy who is a huge Bond fan, knows how to write a film that is thrilling and has depth and it won't be rewritten by any hack. Forget Bond 24 and 25, BOND 26 will be the real deal!

    (Ok that last sentence was a joke but I'm serious about the other things.)
  • Maybe Adelle will write and perform the title song and FKA twigs will do a trip hop version for a scene in a club or at a gala?
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,425
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    "Of the character and the dos-and-don'ts of scripting for 007, Butterworth comments, "You know, like Bond doesn't have scenes with other men. Bond shoots other men - he doesn't sit around chatting to them. So you put a line through that.""

    Good God. More bad news. Sounds like all the dialogue and character driven scenes are being flushed down the toilet for action, action and more action. These films will never change. Action is fine and is part of Bond but why they won't take a little time out for some decent dialogue driven scenes is beyond me. They'll never change. So, now we have Moneypenny back in the field, what sounds like more humour than in SF and CR, unnecessary throwaway lines and now this. Not looking good. What Newman had said before most of his stuff was probably re-written in favour of endless, pointless acton, was encouraging. He was all for further developing Bond's character. Now however, I just can't see this happening. Just more of the same. I don't know why I bother actually thinking that we might get something a little different for once.

    So ONE comment by ONE writer who only spent ONE week on the film, and you're writing it off. I fail to see how it is productive to get so worked up over such little detail.

    Your laid back attitude is to be commended.

    However, it is one very stupid comment by the one writer that Mendes seems to have brought in for a final pollish before starting filming, so I think we are entitled to express a little concern. I mean, he is involved by the sound of it in writing the next Bond movie. If we're not supposed to get worried by one of the writers coming out with this kind of thing then when exactly is concern justified? When they announce Ricky Gervaise has joined to pollish the gags?

    Butterworth's comment does not suggest, shall we say, an appreciation for the subtler aspects of the Bond movie legacy. And if like me, your were not overly impressed by the writing on SF, and harbour lingering doubts about Mendes's judgement, then this kind of thing is deeply concerning.

    From my perspective ONE could be forgiven for seeing this as symptomatic of a misguided and ill-informed fanboy mentality that seems to have begun to seep into the Mendes era. DB5 and ejector seat gags. Not very well formed or well written 'humour' seeping back in.

    Speaking of eras, it is pretty much an era. When did he first become involved with SF? 2008? And B24 is due in 2015. That's 7 years helming Bond. Pretty crazy.

    Shame they couldn't have banged another one out in that time. Seems to me all the time for rewrites and refining the script don't always lead to a better end result.

  • edited November 2014 Posts: 3,236
    @Getafix, Wikipedia says Mendes was announced as the director for Skyfall in 2010, and it's also worth noting that it lost most of the time to troubles with MGM, rather than with the script.

    All the same, I agree that it's certainly an asinine comment by Butterworth, one that we can only hope won't be reflected in the film (given Mendes' tendencies in Skyfall, I believe it's likely to be counteracted).
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Getafix wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    "Of the character and the dos-and-don'ts of scripting for 007, Butterworth comments, "You know, like Bond doesn't have scenes with other men. Bond shoots other men - he doesn't sit around chatting to them. So you put a line through that.""

    Good God. More bad news. Sounds like all the dialogue and character driven scenes are being flushed down the toilet for action, action and more action. These films will never change. Action is fine and is part of Bond but why they won't take a little time out for some decent dialogue driven scenes is beyond me. They'll never change. So, now we have Moneypenny back in the field, what sounds like more humour than in SF and CR, unnecessary throwaway lines and now this. Not looking good. What Newman had said before most of his stuff was probably re-written in favour of endless, pointless acton, was encouraging. He was all for further developing Bond's character. Now however, I just can't see this happening. Just more of the same. I don't know why I bother actually thinking that we might get something a little different for once.

    So ONE comment by ONE writer who only spent ONE week on the film, and you're writing it off. I fail to see how it is productive to get so worked up over such little detail.

    Your laid back attitude is to be commended.

    However, it is one very stupid comment by the one writer that Mendes seems to have brought in for a final pollish before starting filming, so I think we are entitled to express a little concern. I mean, he is involved by the sound of it in writing the next Bond movie. If we're not supposed to get worried by one of the writers coming out with this kind of thing then when exactly is concern justified? When they announce Ricky Gervaise has joined to pollish the gags?

    Butterworth's comment does not suggest, shall we say, an appreciation for the subtler aspects of the Bond movie legacy. And if like me, your were not overly impressed by the writing on SF, and harbour lingering doubts about Mendes's judgement, then this kind of thing is deeply concerning.

    From my perspective ONE could be forgiven for seeing this as symptomatic of a misguided and ill-informed fanboy mentality that seems to have begun to seep into the Mendes era. DB5 and ejector seat gags. Not very well formed or well written 'humour' seeping back in.

    Speaking of eras, it is pretty much an era. When did he first become involved with SF? 2008? And B24 is due in 2015. That's 7 years helming Bond. Pretty crazy.

    Shame they couldn't have banged another one out in that time. Seems to me all the time for rewrites and refining the script don't always lead to a better end result.

    It was a weird comment yes, but going on a rant for over a few pages about it is stupid. Simply put Mendes wouldn't have hired him if he didn't know what he was doing.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 2,598
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Some of the best moments in the series involve Bond talking and having a gentlemanly conversation with...that's right you guessed it, other men!

    Bond and Dr.No at the dinner table
    Bond exchanging words with Grant
    Every encounter Bond had with GF
    Bond winding up Large at the Casino not to mention when he visits him at his home
    The list goes on and on...

    Amen to that! It's like they've completely forgotten about many of the things that made Bond good and well liked in the first place. Evidently, they now only think that it's action. I also miss how Bond used to illustrate his knowledge of fine wine and all these interesting little character facets that make Bond who he is. One wonders if Eon and Mendes understand the character at all. I like Craig as Bond but he's really just a well dressed action man who gets a tad depressed and angry at times. I lament the long gone, good old Connery days.

  • edited November 2014 Posts: 2,598
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    Bounine wrote: »
    "Of the character and the dos-and-don'ts of scripting for 007, Butterworth comments, "You know, like Bond doesn't have scenes with other men. Bond shoots other men - he doesn't sit around chatting to them. So you put a line through that.""

    Good God. More bad news. Sounds like all the dialogue and character driven scenes are being flushed down the toilet for action, action and more action. These films will never change. Action is fine and is part of Bond but why they won't take a little time out for some decent dialogue driven scenes is beyond me. They'll never change. So, now we have Moneypenny back in the field, what sounds like more humour than in SF and CR, unnecessary throwaway lines and now this. Not looking good. What Newman had said before most of his stuff was probably re-written in favour of endless, pointless acton, was encouraging. He was all for further developing Bond's character. Now however, I just can't see this happening. Just more of the same. I don't know why I bother actually thinking that we might get something a little different for once.

    So ONE comment by ONE writer who only spent ONE week on the film, and you're writing it off. I fail to see how it is productive to get so worked up over such little detail.

    To me, the comment says it all! How do you interpret it? Let's hope I have misinterpreted it but it sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

    As for the other things such as putting MP back in the field and throwing in more corny throwaway lines that don't suit Craig's portrayal of the character have never sounded encouraging to me. Based on all these things, it doesn't sound good.

    Who says that Mendes actually does know what he's doing? What I will say is that he's more qualified for the job than Forster. Forster did get the humour right though in terms of Craig's style. Mendes didn't.

    Eon wanted Forster back for the job too.
  • I wonder if Butterworth's comment could possibly mean that, in his view, Bond isn't usually seen sitting down and talking with other men, just running around shooting them all the time (which isn't true) and that there should in fact be more scenes of Bond talking with other men, so they should "put a line through" the notion that Bond doesn't talk with other men. Maybe? Again, that view misunderstands the series and overlooks many of the fantastic scenes we've had of Bond speaking with Kerim, Draco, Columbo, Zukovsky, Mathis, Leiter, etc. (not to mention classic conversations with villains), but that would at least provide a more optimistic outlook on B24's screenplay.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    People chill ...same guy that polished SF. Mendes already commented after seeing Craig on stage what a great actor he is and how didn't want to forget that in the new film. Besides probably ajab reminding everyone Bond is not bisexual ..like Logans take ..not like Flemings Bond. We don't chat with men we shoot them. And no I am not homophobic...

    Y'all get so worked and get so ready to write off B24 and you haven't even seen a script and it hasn't even started filming yet.

    And Nolan? Maybe but wow slow down...its not do or die with Nolan either.

  • Posts: 6,601
    I wonder if Butterworth's comment could possibly mean that, in his view, Bond isn't usually seen sitting down and talking with other men, just running around shooting them all the time (which isn't true) and that there should in fact be more scenes of Bond talking with other men, so they should "put a line through" the notion that Bond doesn't talk with other men. Maybe? Again, that view misunderstands the series and overlooks many of the fantastic scenes we've had of Bond speaking with Kerim, Draco, Columbo, Zukovsky, Mathis, Leiter, etc. (not to mention classic conversations with villains), but that would at least provide a more optimistic outlook on B24's screenplay.

    I said exactly that two or so pages ago. It seems possible. People just rather worry then give the bright side a chance.
  • StrelikStrelik Spectre Island
    edited November 2014 Posts: 108
    Personally, I'm pleased to know a fourth writer is polishing the script. An undeniable failing of Purvis & Wade is their weak dialogue. They craft great action sequences and plot twists, but their dialogue is often stilted.

    I was worried the revised script by Purvis & Wade would be filmed without modification. Obviously, director Sam Mendes is one step ahead of the game, as usual, and he is getting the dialogue right. This only makes me more excited for the film.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Strelik wrote: »
    Personally, I'm pleased to know a fourth writer is polishing the script. An undeniable failing of Purvis & Wade is their weak dialogue. They craft great action sequences and plot twists, but their dialogue is often stilted.

    I was worried the revised script by Purvis & Wade would be filmed without modification. Obviously, director Sam Mendes is one step ahead of the game, as usual, and he is getting the dialogue right. This only makes me more excited for the film.

    And obviously this new guy didnt come in to work on the action scenes, so whats to worry? He is a playwriter, so he is thetre for dialogue.

  • Posts: 1,490
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Strelik wrote: »
    Personally, I'm pleased to know a fourth writer is polishing the script. An undeniable failing of Purvis & Wade is their weak dialogue. They craft great action sequences and plot twists, but their dialogue is often stilted.

    I was worried the revised script by Purvis & Wade would be filmed without modification. Obviously, director Sam Mendes is one step ahead of the game, as usual, and he is getting the dialogue right. This only makes me more excited for the film.

    And obviously this new guy didnt come in to work on the action scenes, so whats to worry? He is a playwriter, so he is thetre for dialogue.

    Yes, a dialogue polish by a writer who excels at dialogue is quite common, although any changes re: what a character says or how they say it and to whom they say it will impact on what a character does or how he/she reacts (as in life), so it's impossible to simply change lines without altering certain dramatic beats or even some action beats.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,119
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Strelik wrote: »
    Personally, I'm pleased to know a fourth writer is polishing the script. An undeniable failing of Purvis & Wade is their weak dialogue. They craft great action sequences and plot twists, but their dialogue is often stilted.

    I was worried the revised script by Purvis & Wade would be filmed without modification. Obviously, director Sam Mendes is one step ahead of the game, as usual, and he is getting the dialogue right. This only makes me more excited for the film.

    And obviously this new guy didnt come in to work on the action scenes, so whats to worry? He is a playwriter, so he is thetre for dialogue.

    Yes, a dialogue polish by a writer who excels at dialogue is quite common, although any changes re: what a character says or how they say it and to whom they say it will impact on what a character does or how he/she reacts (as in life), so it's impossible to simply change lines without altering certain dramatic beats or even some action beats.

    Absolutely. Although I must say here that screenplay writer Simon Raven was credited in "OHMSS" for his 'additional dialogue', how small his part/work on the screenplay may be. Although his 'poetical conversation' between Tracy and Blofeld for me really worked. Puts some extra intellectual drama in the plot. Director Peter Hunt himself mentioned that "this intellectuality" added some credibility to the plot.

    I personal think that Jez Butterworth is doing similar polish-work. And it makes me quite happy he did a slight polish on Purvis & Wade's screenplay. Although Purvis & Wade have a good eye for credible plots, for me the duo's screenplays usually lack a certain...."smooth intellectuality" to the finished product. Making sound many of Brosnan's one-liners at time....a bit out of place and out of the blue. Not only that........rather "fierce and complex" conversations, like the one's between Vesper and 007 in the train ("CR"), between Silva and 007 ("SF") and between Blofeld and Tracy ("OHMSS"), were most of the time absent.

    So I was kind of worried Purvis & Wade really were the "final polishers". Like Simon Raven for "OHMSS" and Paul Haggis for "CR", I am very glad Jez Butterworth is for the Mendes-Bond films always the last screenplay writer to put his eyes on the script by polishing it slightly and by perhaps adding some "intellectuality" to it.

    If Butterworth will be credited like Simon Raven? Or completely "forgotten" like Peter Morgan? Only time will tell.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Some of the overreaction on here makes O'Reilly and Hannity look tame.

    And can we stop wanking on about Nolan? Of the two best franchise films released this year one was directed by the guys who did You, Me and Dupree, while the other was marshalled by the guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. There are other talented people out there.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Some of the overreaction on here makes O'Reilly and Hannity look tame.

    And can we stop wanking on about Nolan? Of the two best franchise films released this year one was directed by the guys who did You, Me and Dupree, while the other was marshalled by the guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. There are other talented people out there.

    As usual, I'm glad that, with your nuanced and stylish use of language, they will not hire you as screenplay polisher :-).
  • Posts: 6,601
    RC7 wrote: »

    And can we stop wanking on about Nolan? Of the two best franchise films released this year one was directed by the guys who did You, Me and Dupree, while the other was marshalled by the guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. There are other talented people out there.


    Totally. I wouldn't want uber-ego Nolan near Bond. Plus I was bored by TDK. Very...
  • Germanlady wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    And can we stop wanking on about Nolan? Of the two best franchise films released this year one was directed by the guys who did You, Me and Dupree, while the other was marshalled by the guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. There are other talented people out there.


    Totally. I wouldn't want uber-ego Nolan near Bond. Plus I was bored by TDK. Very...

    We are talking about screenplay writers for goodness sake :-). It's even in the topic subject line. But I think the discussion leaves certain forummembers cold.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Germanlady wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    And can we stop wanking on about Nolan? Of the two best franchise films released this year one was directed by the guys who did You, Me and Dupree, while the other was marshalled by the guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. There are other talented people out there.


    Totally. I wouldn't want uber-ego Nolan near Bond. Plus I was bored by TDK. Very...

    We are talking about screenplay writers for goodness sake :-). It's even in the topic subject line. But I think the discussion leaves certain forummembers cold.

    Dear GG, self acclaimed mod, I was answering to a Nolan related post and that's it. I am allowed to do that, no? I an sure, peoples IQ is up to dealing with different subjects in one thread, which this one is there for anyway. ;)
  • Posts: 4,619
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Totally. I wouldn't want uber-ego Nolan near Bond. Plus I was bored by TDK. Very...

    Thank God you don't work in the film industry.

  • Germanlady wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    And can we stop wanking on about Nolan? Of the two best franchise films released this year one was directed by the guys who did You, Me and Dupree, while the other was marshalled by the guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. There are other talented people out there.


    Totally. I wouldn't want uber-ego Nolan near Bond. Plus I was bored by TDK. Very...

    We are talking about screenplay writers for goodness sake :-). It's even in the topic subject line. But I think the discussion leaves certain forummembers cold.

    Dear GG, self acclaimed mod, I was answering to a Nolan related post and that's it. I am allowed to do that, no? I an sure, peoples IQ is up to dealing with different subjects in one thread, which this one is there for anyway. ;)

    Why do you ask me if you are allowed to do that :-P. As I recall, I never acted as a "self acclaimed moderator". Just wanted to direct the discussion a bit towards the screenplay part....which IMO is rather interesting to discuss.

    And it can't be a bad thing to focus a bit on the updated topic title....myself included.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited November 2014 Posts: 4,012
    Germanlady wrote: »

    This was rumoured a few months ago if memory serves me right. Right now I'm surprised to see rumours coming up about the title song, as I think this will be decided later.

    EDIT: I just realized that this comes from the NY Post, which is about as bad as it gets with tabloids. They also claim Judi Dench has Harvey Weinstein's name tattooed on her arse :-&
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »

    And can we stop wanking on about Nolan? Of the two best franchise films released this year one was directed by the guys who did You, Me and Dupree, while the other was marshalled by the guy who wrote Scooby-Doo. There are other talented people out there.


    Totally. I wouldn't want uber-ego Nolan near Bond. Plus I was bored by TDK. Very...

    Completely agree about the TDK trilogy. Yawn inducingly tedious in parts. However, one thing I really like about some of Nolan's films is the richness of the production design. He seems to place a very strong emphasis on it. There hasn't been anything very distinctive about Bond production design since MR. As much as I love the John Glen era, his films don't look all that amazing. The Craig era looks a lot better but I am not a huge fan of Dennis Gassner, or whatever his name is. Whereas some of the production design from Inception and TDK is exactly what I'd like to see in Bond. A coherent, fantastical, architectural vision.

    Nolan is of course very relevant to a discussion about screenwriting as well, as if he ever were to helm a Bond, he'd almost certainly write the script as well.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    TDK was great TDKR kind of sucked though.
  • Posts: 11,425
    doubleoego wrote: »
    TDK was great TDKR kind of sucked though.

    I lose track of which is which. The first was okayish. I did not personally get all the fuss about Ledger's Joker in the second. And the third was just bad.
  • I think the people who dislike TDK are few in numbers. I remember I saw it in cinema for the first time. I had this weird kind feeling inside my stomach. A mixture of "hahaha, this The Joker is hilarious!" combined with "Fuck, he's a nasty psychopath...he makes my skin crawl...the way he...kills so many people". A skin-crawling feeling mixed with joyous fun watching The Joker.

  • Posts: 11,425
    I think the people who dislike TDK are few in numbers. I remember I saw it in cinema for the first time. I had this weird kind feeling inside my stomach. A mixture of "hahaha, this The Joker is hilarious!" combined with "Fuck, he's a nasty psychopath...he makes my skin crawl...the way he...kills so many people". A skin-crawling feeling mixed with joyous fun watching The Joker.

    You're right about the Joker. He is pretty disturbing. The whole film is pretty disturbing really. Guess it's just not something I was into when I saw it. You can definitely see the influence on SF. Silva is very much the son of the Joker in his anarchic, almost irrational criminal behaviour.

    Nice looking films though. That I will say.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote: »
    I wonder if Butterworth's comment could possibly mean that, in his view, Bond isn't usually seen sitting down and talking with other men, just running around shooting them all the time (which isn't true) and that there should in fact be more scenes of Bond talking with other men, so they should "put a line through" the notion that Bond doesn't talk with other men. Maybe? Again, that view misunderstands the series and overlooks many of the fantastic scenes we've had of Bond speaking with Kerim, Draco, Columbo, Zukovsky, Mathis, Leiter, etc. (not to mention classic conversations with villains), but that would at least provide a more optimistic outlook on B24's screenplay.

    I said exactly that two or so pages ago. It seems possible. People just rather worry then give the bright side a chance.

    This would be a very strange reading of what he said. It implies he is putting a line through the bits where Bond isn't chatting to other men, which might be even more worrying.
Sign In or Register to comment.