SPECTRE Leaks Discussion (allowed on ONLY this thread) MAJOR PLOTLINE SPOILERS!

12021232526112

Comments

  • I was against another reboot too before the leaks but after reading so much about SP I actually really like the idea of the Craig era being it's own closed off, Nolan esque universe, with a clear beginning, end and overarching story, and that's what I think is happening.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 3,276
    I have read both scripts, and here's what I think (remind you, huge spoilers):

    -Nice new touches here and there in the PCS. Now Sciarra notices Bond from his room when lighting a cigarette revealing the laser of Bond's lasergun for example, instead of almost by accident.

    -The secret meeting in Rome: Fewer seats around the table, and changed to classic Spectre. Think TB, where people are reporting in. Much better dialogue in this scene.

    -The scene with Mr. White has been changed a lot. Mr. White is in a weaker condition than the first script and now only has "weeks to live" due to poisoning. In the final script Bond offers his gun as a sign of trust. Mr. White then shoots himself. But in the earlier script Mr. White is first pointing the gun at Bond saying "you've cost me a lot of pain." There is a sense of danger, which is removed from the final script. I liked the first version better.

    -The final script has a better and tighter third act.
    -There's still a long dinner scene. I still don't buy into the whole "we are related"-scheme. It feels forced.
    - The white persian cat from the first script is gone. So is Irma - the female henchwoman.
    -The lair's solar furnace is gone, which I think is a shame. Q isn't kidnapped, and having Bond escape with Madeleine instead is probably the smarter choice. Oberhauser doesn't leave his lair in a helicopter but is injured by Bond's exploding watch and has half his face burned (can't wait to see this). The audience is suppose to believe that Oberhauser doesn't come out alive when Bond causes the fuel tanks to explode. Good touch.

    -The final scenes in London have been changed a lot:
    -Bond confronts C in his office and deals with him. This scene plays out very much like the very first scene - the PCS - of Casino Royale. I liked the new dialogue.
    -Oberhauser is made a "larger" character who literally hides more in the shadows. He is also less psychotic (shame really, because Waltz is good at this). And in the final script he survives.
    -The final action setpiece involving a RIB down the Thames chasing the helicopter: Much better than the previous one in the MI6 building
    -In the final script the MI6 building is blown up. There's now a countdown, like some studio executives suggested,

    End spoiler

    So...

    If they stay away from shaky-cam, Newman cooks up a good score, and they stay true to this script, this may very well be my favorite James Bond film in this century. It is going to be visually fantastic and luckily the action spectacle is on a larger scale than in SF. I'm especially looking forward to the carchase in Rome, and the snowplane chase in Austria.
    The gadgets are also back. So is the gunbarrel and ending with Bond driving away with the girl. It has "classic" written all over it.
  • Them originally planning to have Mallory as a traitor is another sign that this could be Craig's last imo.

    Well, we know many things we should not know, but we still don't know many, many things...

    All the stuff about SPECTRE being a two-movie arc in Logan's mind works IMO nicely with the "Craig contracted until Bond 25" part of the equation (and we don't really know if it's true). And frankly IMO this movie does look like two movies crammed into one : see how the SPECTRE - the organization - arc in this movie is dealt with in a few minutes : we discover it surrounded with mystery at first, but once we see it in full action, we're already in the middle of the third act, a few minutes before its demise that happens mostly off-screen.

    Another hint of the "two-movies into one" aspect is the budget. You can see all the cut asked by Sony now make Ernst' lair far less impressive on screen : a few sets imagined by Logan won't be built... And the third act will rely a lot on Chris Corbould's miniatures, this is CR's sinking house once again it seems !

    About Craig's Bond quitting. Well it happened already at the beginning of Skyfall : it "only" took some images of MI6 HQ exploding to have him reporting for duties :)







  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think I'm the only one who didn't have an issue with the sinking house finale in CR.

  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    You're not the only one who liked it
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 68
    Read the new script. Subtle changes in the first two acts. Name of Austrian clinic has changed. Lucia doesn't give Bond a password, he just shows up. No masks at the meeting either which I guess is for the best but I kind of liked the Eyes Wide Shut vibe. The third act is much more tighter but I don't like C's death. Seems like a CR PTS carbon copy. Why do that? The step brother thing is still kind of overdone but I can live with it. They were both foster kids but who the Hell is Ernest Serban lol?
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Just what?
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 187
    leas_mole wrote: »
    I do not think that this will be DC's last Bond although (on the surface) the loose ends seem to be tied up, hence the ending. However things are never as they seem....
    The Fiennes thing is another reason I think this could be the last Craig film. If that had happened as originally planned, would they really have ended up introducing another new M after this?

    Why not? We've already technically had 5 in the films; Lee, Brown, Dench (x2 since its beyond obvious she's been two different M's) and now Fiennes. We've also had 2 Moneypenny's, three Q's and one jokingly referred to as R.

    Don't really think it matters anymore at this point but that's just me.

  • Posts: 9,846
    Craig is signed till bond 25 lets all relax
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    I was against another reboot too before the leaks but after reading so much about SP I actually really like the idea of the Craig era being it's own closed off, Nolan esque universe, with a clear beginning, end and overarching story, and that's what I think is happening.

    once Craig's run is done.. they'll carry on, business as usual - probably in a similar style, seeing as how this route has worked for them both creatively and financially since CR.... i don't feel as though Craig's era will be this sequestered storyline from the franchise, that will never be touched on again... i think who ever carries on after, will no doubt also have to deal with SPECTRE in future films, but i think subtle nods could always be made to the previous films - much like the way they did in the films after Connery left the role... rebooting timelines with each new actor (considering they really only play the role for 10 years on average) is not wise... lets have another 30 years of continuity before we discuss another reboot :)
  • I think the next film should Involve some sort of incident that persuades bond to rejoin or something? And Craig should return for one more. Also spectre should be a reoccurring enemy, but not in every film
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2014 Posts: 4,399
    if Oberhauser survives this film - no doubt, Bond 25 will be him wanting to try and exact some amount of revenge on Bond.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    And it Waltz coming back for B25 is true then Craig will be back too. Don't tie up loose ends with a New Bond. that would be DAF all over again.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Fiennes declining to be a bad guy in SP meant they had to contrive the Denbeigh workaround to have a suitable inside man to blame. I wonder how much screen time that took away from other plot points and characters, including Blofeld as a result and what delays it cost.

    Well from the timing, it looks a lot like it was because of Fiennes' refusal that they had to call Purvis and Wade... The mail about Sam Mendes "freaking out" they could not convince Fiennes to play the bad guy is within 1 or 2 weeks of the P&W announcement IIRC.

    Thanks @Suivez. I was also thinking about how much time could have been saved (in a 2.5 hr movie) by not having to introduce a new character ('C') and potentially concoct the Nine Eyes scenario if Fiennes had just said yes to being a baddie. They could have just moved into it rather than having to establish 'C' in the film. Additionally, Nine Eyes may not have been necessary - they could have just worked within the scenario of MI6 being infiltrated directly with M. So time could have been devoted on film to other characters and issues. I am sure this had a significant impact on them.

    In terms of the 2 story arc, it's also apparent that they had ideas that would have worked better in a 2 movie scenario, including Bunt's character and perhaps Ms. Sciarra's. Now they have been forced to cram everything into one movie, drop some important characters from the Blofeld universe, like Bunt, and of course, as has been mentioned, the budget is also compressed because everything has to fit into one. That's a shame, and it's unfortunate that Mendes made this occur with his insistence on only doing one. He was the one who also forced the extra year delay so he has some answering for.

    From what I've been reading, this movie looks like it will really have the Bondian feel, which I'm very excited for. Some very nice touches and refinements. I would have preferred the two movie arc though, because I think it would have made for a much better integrated story, built more excitment for B25 & maybe resulted in B25 arriving sooner than it otherwise will now. Moreover, we likely wouldn't be left with this somewhat unresolved ending that everyone is speculating about.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 68
    I have had some time to reflect on this December script and I have some things to get off my chest. From what I have read I think Bond fans like us will love this movie. Great traditional Bond movie. General audience will find it Holiday movie action fluff that will be enjoyable. Critics may not be on board for it. I really feel the foster brother storyline is going to sink this movie critically. It reeks of Austin Powers. The main thing is that it's not needed! The clues that Bond uses to uncover things has really nothing to do with this past relationship with Oberhauser. The tape from M sends him on the mission, he gets info from Lucia and Madeleine as well Mr White. In other words he's doing his job! The foster brother angle just seems so forced and dare I say cheesy? Also, don't shoot me but ALOT of this script seems like retreaded material they are breaking out for the film. It also doesn't have much originality thus why I think the critics are going to be harsh. Let's begin with the PTS, really nothing wrong with it so let's move on lol! The new member of the intelligence agency, Denbeigh, is so obviously a bad guy we are not shocked by the reveal later. No surprise there at all. His death is a direct retread of the CR PTS arrrrgggghhh I hate that death scene of C. Even though I love the Hinx character he is a modern day Jaws without the teeth (Retread). The Rewrites of the Rome meeting I think are not for the good. I liked the masks being worn. I also liked the eyeball speech by Oberhauser. Those are now gone. I lov playing poker and loved the poker scenes in CR but do we need Bond and Oberhauser play? Seems forced and could have been done in a different way. We have the damn DB5 being forced into the script along with Heiniken. Don't get me wrong I love about 80% of this script but I really think they are making a mistake with the foster brother angle. Again, who the hell is Ernest Serban? Did they mean to say ESB? The way his new name is introduced it may come across as forced if Bond does say ESB so I don't know how I feel about this. Is there going to be an ESB especially when all signs point he is ESB ( scar on face after explosion, head of SPECTRE). Speaking of SPECTRE they never mention what the name stands for it's just Spectre. I also saw no inclusion of what happened to Quantum. Were they a part of Spectre or were they consumed by them. No mention in the script. Maybe they will clean up some of this. The overall feel of the movie is great but they still need to work on this. Just my two cents :)>-
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think I'm the only one who didn't have an issue with the sinking house finale in CR.


    I've always liked it, anyone thinking they'd do it like the book must of been off their rocker. Much better than the Raiders lite sequence in Miami and so much more inventive than a sequence that is a pale retread of one the legendary sequences of the greatest action adventure film of all time.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2014 Posts: 23,883
    JazzyBond wrote: »
    Again, who the hell is Ernest Serban? Did they mean to say ESB? The way his new name is introduced it may come across as forced if Bond does say ESB so I don't know how I feel about this. Is there going to be an ESB especially when all signs point he is ESB ( scar on face after explosion, head of SPECTRE).

    I agree. This has the same forced stench as John "Robin" Blake from The Dark Knight Rises. Hopefully it's just a typo.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I'm annoyed at tge lack of communication going on with the people involved. First of all, didn't Fiennes prior to being cast in SF make a big deal about no longer wanting to play villainous roles, secondly why try to undo the beloved character he became to be and so early in his tenure, thirdly, making M a villain is the mother of all crap cliches the Bond movies could possibly come up with at this juncture in the series' history and lastly, why spend months/years writing s script and then checking with the actor only for the actor to oppose the direction the story is headed in. The whole thing just seems so messy and so much time was clearly wasted. I think EON need to be more hands on and a lot more clear with their creative collaborators because judging by Logan's contributions, it's clear he was given free reign to write whatever he wanted; it's like the producers didn't even speak to him or enquire about any sort if detail with where Logan was going and surprise-surprise we ended up with a travesty. Maybe it was the 1.1billion dollars SF made that encouraged Babs and Mike to let Logan do wtf he wanted but in doing so, serious problems arose.

    It's things like this that are so basic and completely avoidable that can save a lot of time. So many people harp on about more time between movies will make for a better film and often cite the CR/QoS gap release as an example which I think is bs. More time doesn't mean better movie. If everybody was on the same page from the start there'd be less creative problems to deal with. I just hope the producers have learned something from this whole spectre pre production and that includes the hiring of a director. EON should have a clear idea or at least a circumstantial plan in going forward in terms of who's directing Bond 25 so we don't have to wait around an extra year for a director to get his/her ducks in line. If Mendes doesn't want to come back for Bond 25 then leave him and get someone else capable of doing the job but something tells me he'll be back for Bond 25.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    bondjames wrote: »
    JazzyBond wrote: »
    Again, who the hell is Ernest Serban? Did they mean to say ESB? The way his new name is introduced it may come across as forced if Bond does say ESB so I don't know how I feel about this. Is there going to be an ESB especially when all signs point he is ESB ( scar on face after explosion, head of SPECTRE).

    I agree. This has the same forced stench as John "Robin" Blake from The Dark Knight Rises. Hopefully it's just a typo.
    Or John Harrison as Khan.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Zekidk wrote: »
    I have read both scripts, and here's what I think (remind you, huge spoilers):

    -Nice new touches here and there in the PCS. Now Sciarra notices Bond from his room when lighting a cigarette revealing the laser of Bond's lasergun for example, instead of almost by accident.

    -The secret meeting in Rome: Fewer seats around the table, and changed to classic Spectre. Think TB, where people are reporting in. Much better dialogue in this scene.

    -The scene with Mr. White has been changed a lot. Mr. White is in a weaker condition than the first script and now only has "weeks to live" due to poisoning. In the final script Bond offers his gun as a sign of trust. Mr. White then shoots himself. But in the earlier script Mr. White is first pointing the gun at Bond saying "you've cost me a lot of pain." There is a sense of danger, which is removed from the final script. I liked the first version better.

    -The final script has a better and tighter third act.
    -There's still a long dinner scene. I still don't buy into the whole "we are related"-scheme. It feels forced.
    - The white persian cat from the first script is gone. So is Irma - the female henchwoman.
    -The lair's solar furnace is gone, which I think is a shame. Q isn't kidnapped, and having Bond escape with Madeleine instead is probably the smarter choice. Oberhauser doesn't leave his lair in a helicopter but is injured by Bond's exploding watch and has half his face burned (can't wait to see this). The audience is suppose to believe that Oberhauser doesn't come out alive when Bond causes the fuel tanks to explode. Good touch.

    -The final scenes in London have been changed a lot:
    -Bond confronts C in his office and deals with him. This scene plays out very much like the very first scene - the PCS - of Casino Royale. I liked the new dialogue.
    -Oberhauser is made a "larger" character who literally hides more in the shadows. He is also less psychotic (shame really, because Waltz is good at this). And in the final script he survives.
    -The final action setpiece involving a RIB down the Thames chasing the helicopter: Much better than the previous one in the MI6 building
    -In the final script the MI6 building is blown up. There's now a countdown, like some studio executives suggested,

    End spoiler

    So...

    If they stay away from shaky-cam, Newman cooks up a good score, and they stay true to this script, this may very well be my favorite James Bond film in this century. It is going to be visually fantastic and luckily the action spectacle is on a larger scale than in SF. I'm especially looking forward to the carchase in Rome, and the snowplane chase in Austria.
    The gadgets are also back. So is the gunbarrel and ending with Bond driving away with the girl. It has "classic" written all over it.

    Thanks for the breakdown. I share a lot of the same concerns. It does appear this film, will be an exciting colourful Bond spectacle. Probably the best of the Craig films, although I am not a fan of any of the preceding, so for me that's not saying a whole lot.
    My big objection with the first three Craig films, is not so much him, but all the insufferable personal drama.
    It does seen Danny boy will still have some issues, but it does seem they may be toned down to bearable levels, and we will get much more of Bond with mojo fully intact.
    This is a very good thing indeed!!!!
    What they are trying to with the Ernst reveal looks very dodgy. I will reserve judgement though.
    Bond quitting at the end, is just more DC-era gratuitous drama. Yawn.
    Granted, it may tie-in with the Swann relatiionship, but still, this is fiction. The films don't need to be crafted this way.
    I also am very leery of the foster-brothers nonsense. Again more gratuitous personal drama. Double yawn.

    re Casino Royale sinkinghouse. I have no issues with that scene.
    The Bond-Vesper relationship was so far removed from the spirit of the Fleming novel, that I really didn't care how it finished up in the movie. The sinking house made for a strong action-set piece to finish up with. No issues there.
    My big problem with CR, was the absurdity of making Fleming's novel a not-needed origins drama. If Bond had simply been introduced as young 00 agent on assignment (as the book did) we could have been spared all the interminable M-Bond trust drama that dragged out over two whole films. Still gives me a headache. Poor tortured Bond.

    But, on cheery note, SP holds promise of being a good entertaining Bond romp, with plenty of Bond being Bond, despite the parts I am sure I won't like. :)

    I do like the way scenarios from previous films are being re-envisioned. After 53 years and 24 films, I don't think that's the worst thing.
    I do like, that the clinic mirrors Piz Gloria. That should be real entertaining.
    The dinner scene is homage to DN. Good stuff.
    Jinx as Jaws. I am down with that. And yes, he's probably not emphatically killed either.
    Could be coming back. Good!
    And even though Spectre seems a little off here, this is essentially Spectre origins film.
    There is still potential for fully realized Blofeld, white cat and a powerful Spectre reimagining in future films.
    It is encouraging, that both Bunt and cat were included in early drafts. These characters could still be revisited down the road.


    Give this movie a strong score and it could be quite the colourful ride. And we've got top notch featured Bond girls. Plus a couple of bonus 3rd tier girls, just like the old days.
    Pts looks real good. Bond with comely female agent on mission. Very good!

    I am glad for these leaks. I now know there will at least be a lot of stuff I am going to lap up.
    Otherwise, I'd be breaking out in cold sweats at night haunted by visions of Spectre's return being wasted on more drama. shudder.
  • Is this December script the FINAL one? Couldn't further changes still be made? Also, is Silva at all referenced in this film?
  • I really liked how they made the Bond girl in Bond's flat someone under Oberhauser's control
  • Silva is addressed. I've read it again and the problems I had are not that bad. The change in dialogue in Rome meeting is very TB and I now am on board with it. Do not hate the C ending as much. Bond does say something like "Some people never learn" showing they know this is an homage to CR PTS. I am now convinced Madeleine will die in the next one. Why? Just think about it, she is the daughter of a major crime syndicate boss just like Teresa. The ending line by Bond is "We have all the time in the world!" How more obvious can they be plus the Spectre teaser poster is a bullet hole reminiscent of OHMSS. That is what will bring Bond back in Bond 25 where he will confront Oberhauser/Serban/Blofeld/Mickey Mouse :P
  • JazzyBond wrote: »
    Critics may not be on board for it. I really feel the foster brother storyline is going to sink this movie critically.

    Well, remember that with Lea Seydoux and even with Monica Belluci, who's famous here too, French media will follow SPECTRE a lot : Seydoux is already on the "2015 list" here... And well, a few weeks ago, in a middle of an afternoon radio show, the host said about SPECTRE : "the villain will be the foster brother of Bond", in a WTF? tone. About already one million people here has heard this, and it wasn't said in the best of tone...

    About reading a script vs seeing a movie, imagine reading the script of Skyfall. You could have though the "Silva wants to eat Bond" dialog was super weird, but Bardem managed to pull it off very nicely. Or, you could have wondered if Bond's parents grave appearance was a bit forced ? In the end, you see it only 4 seconds. Or, well, you'd have read Judi Dench's M facing henchmen and shooting at them, and Kincade "kicking ass" in a Welcome to Scotland moment... There's still much room for direction and acting !
    JazzyBond wrote: »
    Speaking of SPECTRE they never mention what the name stands for it's just Spectre. I also saw no inclusion of what happened to Quantum. Were they a part of Spectre or were they consumed by them. No mention in the script. Maybe they will clean up some of this. The overall feel of the movie is great but they still need to work on this. Just my two cents :)>-

    Yes, no mention of Quantum, and the "les Spectres de Pierre" mention has disappeared in the last leaked script, along with all the story of Ernst at the Foreign Legion, and why Mr White fear him a lot. And yes, much time is spent with C, who on script looks like a boring and predictable character.

    IMO, Seydoux has a lot of pressure on her shoulders as her role is quite important (she basically doesn't leave the screen once she appears, does she ?), but Scott has to deal IMO with a caricature of a role. Not easy either. At all.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I really hope the Foster brother angle is scrapped altogether. It sounds so stupid. All you would need is a Michael Caine cameo as Andrew Bond saying. It's okay Ernsty... yuck that's the lamest twist ever.
  • Upon a second read Q does mention that Le Chiffre, Quantum and Silva are all a part of Spectre. So they do mention Quantum albeit very little. Yeah the C stuff is predictable because you know he is bad from the start so no big reveal here.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Murdock wrote: »
    I really hope the Foster brother angle is scrapped altogether. It sounds so stupid. All you would need is a Michael Caine cameo as Andrew Bond saying. It's okay Ernsty... yuck that's the lamest twist ever.

    not sure what you read, if anything...

    but the foster brother angle may be a bit gimmicky - but the way it's revealed in the script (at least the draft i read) was actually well done.. Waltz dialog during the reveal (imo) was excellent, and it really creates a tense moment, as you can feel Bond starting realize and connect the dots in his head.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I really hope the Foster brother angle is scrapped altogether. It sounds so stupid. All you would need is a Michael Caine cameo as Andrew Bond saying. It's okay Ernsty... yuck that's the lamest twist ever.

    not sure what you read, if anything...

    but the foster brother angle may be a bit gimmicky - but the way it's revealed in the script (at least the draft i read) was actually well done.. Waltz dialog during the reveal (imo) was excellent, and it really creates a tense moment, as you can feel Bond starting realize and connect the dots in his head.

    I didn't read much. Because I don't want to spoil the whole film but it's just that one part feels so hamfisted and cliche that it makes me fear that it will be headed toward DAD territory. I don't mind over the top Bond but making his arch nemesis related to him when Fleming's Bond never had that feels so derivative.
  • The biggest change about Ernst and the foster brother angle in the last two scripts is that in the earlier script, Ernst was described as someone able to slit everyone's throat in their sleep while he was in the Foreign Legion in "Les Spectres de Pierre", except Mr White's because he needed him to carry some weight. In the last script, IIRC all this disappear, and we're left with the fact poor little Ernst was a weak and ill child, and seemingly not very impressive from an intellectual point of view, so that his father seemingly did not care for him : he would not try to practice some sport with him or even play poker with him. And here comes young James Bond, who becomes the family's prefered son... All Ernst's rise in the criminal world is then quite a mystery, he's never explictly described as a lunatic mastermind Mr White is afraid of.
Sign In or Register to comment.