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 can‘t await B25 - to me Craig ranks behind King Connery as favourite Bond actors and I am sure it will stay this way also after B25.
+1
This extended time between films has created a void that DC haters are now trying to fill.
One point, though: my understanding is that Mendes did not work on the rejected draft. He’s the one who was unhappy with what Logan wrote and then brought in others to help fix it. I still contend that the film might have turned out a lot better if Butterworth, Wade, and Purvis has another 2+ months to fix the script
I find the direction of his films to be too gritty, and in the moments Craig has to show a more lighthearted side, he seems way out of his comfort zone. It's just as easy to blame Mendes & Co for that, though.
It's actually more true that Sony and EoN were not fans of Logan's scripts. In fact, there was a time when Mendes promised he was smoothing out the script over the weekend and missed a conference call with Sony. He promised they were working on the things Sony didn't like.
And I believe this is one of those times that they handed in a script that was even worse than the one they were re-writing (if memory serves, this was when Logan was axed).
And the big baddie having a relationship with Bond was left-over DNA from the earliest drafts. It was shepherded right through... and there were people at Sony who had misgivings about it. It sounded like a thread that Mendes championed.
Reading this I find it almost surprising the film we got was made. What a mess this production must have been.
As someone who loves Skyfall that films showed that Mendes was quite pleased with the idea of digging into Bond's past and when I heard him and Logan had already envisaged a follow up on set I can well believe what you are saying here.
I figure the whole idea of having Mallory be the SPECTRE agent inside MI6 which Fiennes rightly nixed was how horrific their story was getting and when this wasn't go to happen things went from bad to worse.
So when P&W were bought in to whip the script into a shootable situation they didn't get much time to do this. What I am curious to confirm as I thought it was P&W that came up with brothergate or was this part of Logan/Mendes frankenstein mess?
I always believed that P&W went there with this and this was not part of Logan or Mendes treatment?
Could you clarify this one @peter please?
I agree. The humour that suits Craig is more sardonic (I love when he's disgusted by Fields' choice of hotel, storms out, says for her to arrest him, then the very next scene they're walking into a hotel of his choosing, and he uses her "cover": "We are teachers on sabbatical, and we have just won the lottery", followed by the glance he and Fields then exchange. I love that delivery and that's as far as I want to see Craig go with the funny.
Anything bigger than that, in way of humour, I don't think he can do.
And I do point the finger at Mendes for this: I think SF was an incredible romp. I love how we have a big PTS that flows from foot, to car, to motorbike, to train, and as the film goes on, the set pieces get smaller and smaller until we're at the final showdown at Skyfall lodge...as director, though, and especially in Sp, he did not bring out the best in his lead actor so far as the humour goes. It's the director's job to bring out the best in an actor; to not be tone-deaf when something isn't working, even though they want it to work. Making Craig funny-"funny" is like forcing a square-peg through a round hole. It doesn't suit him.
The humour in B25, with Boyle at the helm, will be interesting since I find Boyle's humour laced with a witty, self-deprecating darkness.
Must agree about SF PTS it's glorious, the russian doll idea that they execute makes for me one of the best of the series period, I know others disagree but it's a blast.
With the way that Hodge handles humour in the Trainspotting films and Boyle's abilities I think we are in much safer territory with them 2. They have a track record for this kind of thing, not really sure Mendes was ever one for loading his films previous to SF with humour anyway.
I think even with SF it did seem like he'd got DC trying to do Rog type humour and it didn't work. I love SF but I have to admit it has it's problems and those were magnified tenfold by the time we got to SPECTRE.
So maybe blaming P&W for that element is a bit unfair? It seems they should have just announced they were delaying the release to get things right, although doing such a thing would have cost money and also put out that already publicised troubled production was not hiding there was issues.
The genesis of the whole problem was letting Mendes and Logan run away for too long with their concept and then poor Neil and Robert with assistance from Butterworth trying to salvage it.
As I said it languishes at no. 24 on my ranking because I regard it as the biggest missed opportinity of the series and whenever I watch it I just get angry at what a mess it was.
Though it seems it could have been much worse though.
Thanks for your insight into the situation.
@RC7 has said in the past, making a film is like going to war. There are so many levels of "troops" to govern. And with all best intentions-- because no one sets out to make a crappy film-- sometimes the machine falls apart, no matter the efforts put into it, and we get a stinker of a movie.
And although Sp was a mess, I don't for a second believe effort was not put in to salvage it.
But you're correct, in a perfect world they would have delayed production-- and I'm sure this was at least a discussion. They would have blown several millions of dollars in development, but they could get back to the drawing board.
Unfortunately, my assumption is, Sony (the distributor who needed Bond to be a part of their slate), wouldn't want to delay shooting by another year coz that would sincerely cock-up projections (and the way Sony was/is going), could have attributed to a loss if they delayed filming on the next 007 pic.
So, they plowed through with a script that was faulty at its earliest conception-- never a good sign.
But this gives me faith in Boyle and Hodge.
And shows me a little of Babs and MGW's ruthlessness in getting the best out of their product:
We know P&W delivered a script.
But, without the shackles of a distributor on board at that time, Babs had the luxury to hear the pitch that Boyle believed she'd never go for...
Boyle was wrong.
The P&W script got binned.
And now we're rolling into casting and locations.
I for one am very excited about 25.
Agree. I hope Boyle can find a good balance with the humour for B25. I think it's a vital part of the films, and it's so very noticeable when it's done wrong.
This isn't the case with Dalton, Moore or Connery, whose performances I much prefer in their 2nd (and in the case of Connery and Moore, also their later) outings.
Regarding SP, there are some decent scenes in the film and once it's no longer the last one, I'm sure folks will become more forgiving of it. This is what normally happens anyway. Even DAD seems to be more appreciated these days. Time heals everything, as they say. I wouldn’t be surprised if some actually end up preferring SP to B25 when it’s all said and done. Such is the nature of things.
I look forward to seeing what he will bring to the table for B25. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the film at this juncture. Curious is the more apt description of my state of mind at present. I will take a wait and see attitude, and hope to be pleasantly impressed by the eventual offering.
In terms of Craig's position in the Bond pantheon, I think it's a bit early to reach a proper conclusion, given he's still the incumbent and consequently the beneficiary of some bias (both positive and negative). I'm sure he'll end up one of the top three when it's all said and done (due to both the critical and box office success of his tenure, as well as his long run), although I expect a decline in estimation immediately once Bond #007 makes his debut. EON always focus their efforts 100% on the current man and do their best to make him look great. Inevitably that results in a decline in opinion for the immediate predecessor for a while (witness Moore immediately post-Dalton, Dalton immediately post-Brosnan, and Brosnan immediately post-Craig), prior to a later reassessment, when the tide turns again. Given this, I can appreciate why very few actors would want to voluntarily leave the role.
Right now I personally have him fourth, behind Connery, Moore and Dalton. He may get to three eventually (a position he once held in my ranking) if B25 is a redemption.
Also I think Craig is fully aware despite his previous entry though not embarrassing in the BO stakes, he knows that it fell considerably short in other areas and the idea that the shooting script was far from where it should have been due to Logan and Mendes getting too much free reign and poor P&W having the job of salvaging it.
Bond 25 seems a much more organised situation and Hodge's script we would hope at this stage in good shape. I will be interested to see if his script is handed over to someone else to polish or contribute as is what has happened with every script of this era.
Or all versions of the script are entirely Hodge with Boyle's contribution, I know this would be unique for the Craig era and if this does happen we should see quite a different film, a singular vision from an arguably acclaimed and talented screen writer.
I really hope this is the case although I know what a production these films are and the money at stake, so can see us hearing someone else has been bought into polish Hodge's work. Although he's far from P&W in the talents department so it could happen.
I think for me Bond 25 is in a much safer place than I could of anticipated after what a mess SPECTRE had been. Although I was promising myself I'd temper my expectations, a although I don't want to go into the cinema in late October next year expecting to be blown away, I have a positive vibe that I can't help but embrace.
If this is Craig's last and for him to come back from the brink or lets be honest from the bottom of the cliff in bits and be standing proud with a swansong on the level of his debut, that would be something truly special and maybe Boyle and Hodge are the team to achieve this, yes exciting indeed.
How do you mean?
"SPECTRE was a roaring success, but unfortunately there is a handful people on an internet chat board who didn t like it. What can we do?"
This has been the most criticised entry of the series, maybe you think the idea of a half assed script being pushed into production wasn't noticeable or the idea of turning Bond's most famous nemesis into a joke was OK?
If that is the case then fine but I was a big advocate of this era right up to this film and even defend the much criticised SF on these boards although had to concede I wasn't able to this film.
If you think SPECTRE had no problems then that is your opinion and you are welcome to it but I'm not just being critical about a film that wasn't inherent with problems from the get go.
To be fully on board including when everyone was hating on QOS for me to feel the way I do to suggests this film was not right.
Possibly not but the film wasn't received as favourably as Skyfall and I'm sure they are aware of that. Craig even said he wanted to go out on a good one, so I think he knows it wasn't great.
Part of his desire to return rests around not just the pay day but to end on a high.
If it had been Skyfall he'd decided to end on I'm sure he would have felt much more comfortable with that legacy, ending on one of the most critically acclaimed and the highest grossing film of the series and not a film that was rife with terrible publicity from the get go. With early drafts of the scripts being leaked to the press and the film being rewritten 6 months before it was going into production.
Agreed we are a small percentage the fan base but I imagine when the publicity starts Craig will get asked what went wrong last time like they did with QOS on the publicity trail of SF.
I'm in the tiny minority who finds QoS to be the best in Craig's era. It edges CR ever so slightly for me, they're both incredible installments.
Still unsure why Bond dumps Mathis in the skip though. He wasn’t hiding the body so why do that?
Just because. And because Mathis wouldn t mind. A little prank among friends?
I bit harsh considering Mathis can never get him back for that one.
Also serves as misdirection, the appearance of a mugging gone wrong. Even if the bad guys will pin it on him regardless, there's not much more Bond can do with the situation.
More seriously, I want observe that maybe no character in the Bond films is given such a respectful focus in their dying moments as with Mathis here. It's a passing of the torch from an older agent to a new one, and properly gives perspective to the dangerous and dirty business they're in.
It's a beautiful scene but I do wish Mathis managed to stick around a while longer. He's probably my favorite character of the Craig era.