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'm not quoting your whole post as it's pointless but I don't necessarily agree that Bond going forward should be personal, I actually would like the films to get back to something more about Bond being on a mission but I also reverting to Bond of old is not the answer as well. As for Connery Bond having depth, I don't see it but then it wasn't required. Yes he was very cool and he played the role so well at his peak for me FRWL although the more rounded portrayal was probably TB, what happened with YOLT will always be a tragedy to me anyway.
I am saying that Bond fans make a very small percentage of the people who go and see these films and due to the fact Bond isn't a comic the fans will never have much influence over what ends up on the screen. Whereas Marvel and DC I'd say fans do get noticed and acknowledged and you do get the comics on screen like the fans would like more often, hence why the likes of me who isn't a comic book fan or wrapped up in it's mythology is just let bored out of my mind and unmoved. The geeks undoubtedly do make a difference here, I know far more comic readers than I do Bond fans
Whereas Bond appeals to more a general audience, the average joe will watch Bond knows Bond allot more than say an average viewer viewer of Marvels & DC's output as the films have entered into the culture like few film series ever had.
Bond needs to appeal to more than fans and what necessarily gets everyone wet on these boards isn't going to translate to the general public. Bond had to move on if they'd bought DC on board with a DAD style adventure, Bond would never had made the impact it did. Bond had reached the point where a reset was well and truly on the cards and it's only fan boys who can't let go of their rose tinted specs would try and deny because it doesn't fit in with their nostalgic wet dreams.
If EON suddenly became the property of this board and everyone on this site took an active involvement in producing the films, I guarantee we'd have the a film series that has been around over 50 years on it's knees. Just because we know what we like and we want our favourite bits doesn't mean we could produce these films with more success than what EON are doing now. No you don't like the Craig era but are we forgetting that CR was very successful, QOS for all it's complaints was clearly no flop and Skyfall the film that on the site for some is the most derided of the series took over a billion dollars.
Yes of course it would be better if the character was served but playing service to a small majority where the films did OK box office but nothing that special in this current climate. You might not like it but this is the first time in decades that Bond has found itself playing in the same sand box as other franchises. Yeah the series was successful after TB but it never set the world alight like other franchises did in the 80's and 90's like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and then at the start of the 21st Century, Harry Potter, LOTR, Transformers etc.
Skyfall has actually made it possible for people to say yes this next film could be in the top tier of 2015, if Bond hadn't of rebooted and just continued down the same old path of man on a mission with gadgets that saves the world and has sex with copious women with no emotional investment I guarantee we wouldn't be talking billion dollar grosses and the level of anticipation that we have for Spectre and that is with millions of people not just a small percentage of what makes up it's obsessive fan base.
I know some of you would gladly accept middle tier grosses and film that pleased a smaller percentage as long as you were satisfied but if these films don't make the mark they are making in this day and age it won't be like before where some entries can just muddle along with the odd big gross here and there. If EON delivers 2 in a row under performers I'd say we'd have ourselves having real problems and possible take overs would loom, let any other studio other than EON have a the rights to this series and your gripes about the direction of James Bond 007 would be small fry compared to what we have at the moment.
So no this film series is not in trouble, people have been bitching about screenplays since CR onwards and it's only in this unprecedented situation due to the Sony leak that we have had such unofficial access to the script this early in it's stages that we can more than speculate what will be on the screen next November. The point is these films need to be juggernauts to survive and yours and my desires I'm afraid don't factor into that.
thats a little harsh... do you think they hired someone, thinking and knowing that he would turn in substandard work?... they hired him back, because of the success of SF, and because he and Mendes had a great working relationship - and Mendes wanted him back.. it wasn't until they got his script that they realized that maybe sacking Purvis & Wade wasn't the best choice - so they brought them back to rework the script..
hindsight is always 20/20... i thought Madonna would do a good Bond theme - based on her most recent songs like "Frozen".. but turns out, she fell asleep at the wheel..... crap like this happens...
you can have all the preproduction issues you want - in fact, that is THE BEST time to have and work out issues.. i would rather have these issues first and get them resolved before going into production.. thats what pre-production is for, and no doubt i would say 99% of films go through the same exact thing, except it was leaked to the internet... imagine if all the drama behind the scenes of QOS were leaked - we would've been prepping the gallows before the film was even released - because that film WENT INTO production still with a mountain of problems... unlike SP..
If the producers and director had give a better brief to the writer in terms of what boundaries could be crossed and what boundaries could not be crossed, and if they had insisted that they get constant updates in the form of a high level outline sent to them with the major themes as they developed (without need for detail), then I'm sure half of the problems could have been eliminated.
I get the impression that sometimes these creative types are just given too much rope to hang themselves, and are only pulled in after the fact.
If they plan it better and have better operational control, they could definitely save a lot of time and also save a lot of costs, that could then be applied to the production budget.
But you know you are in for a troubled script when Bond starts to rip off Austin Powers. They already used the "I'm your brother"-angle in the latest Austin Powers.
Avengers is a flashy, colourful movie with rapid fire quips, big well directed setpieces, etc. But (from what I can remember) the plot is pretty meh and there's not much more to the movie than "good guys kill the bad guys". Style over substance.
Nolan's films have way more substance than a typical Hollywood blockbuster. There are deeper themes, social commentary and bits that make you think. But he's not good at action and his films are often very clunky (in terms of pacing, dialouge, action, etc) and are all really po faced. There's substance but not much style, which is why I don't think that he's right for a Bond film.
Maybe I will take you more seriously once you have at least a few hundred posts.
Logan made a pitch in 2012. How detailed that pitch was, I have no way of knowing. MGM announced he had been hired to write Bond 24 and Bond 25 in November of 2012.
In 2013, Baz Bamigboye reported the two-movie story arc had been scrapped. This was before it was announced that Mendes would return.
Logan was quoted by Empire in March that he was nearing completion of the first draft.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=40356
At that time, Logan said Mendes was "very involved" in the writing process as was Daniel Craig.
Bamigboye then had a story after Neal Purvis and Robert Wade delivered their first draft.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2712691/BAZ-BAMIGBOYE-What-thriller-Bond-24-gets-big-revamp-scenes-bother-script.html
According to Bamigboye, Purvis and Wade answered a "five-alarm call" from Craig and Mendes about the script (a script, according to Logan, both had been very involved with as it was put together).
And let's not be in denial about Spectres pre-production havoc. IMO there are way too many cooks in the kitchen!
No one is really denying that the pre-production had a twinge of chaos to it, the point is majority of Hollywood pre-production does as well and we only have these leaks from one film out of 24 so we can compare it to absolutely nothing. We don't have emails or drafts to compare it to Solace, we dont have emails or drafts to compare it to DAD, we don't have emails or drafts to compare it to LTK, MR, TMWTGG, DAF, zilch, zero, nadda. To view this one event and place blame is essentially, in a word, retarded. Hollywood works in complete, dysfunctional ways.
Bond isn't really a 'family run' franchise anymore. It's bigger than that now. Times have changed. There are more hands in the pot now. 007 is now a billion dollar, money making machine. There are going to be internal arguments about the direction of the future of the franchise. There are going to be disagreements. There are going to be writers and executives who come in and have ideas that are probably going to be complete horseshit that Babs and Mike will have to work around and shift through. Par for the course with big blockbusters whether anyone here wants to admit it or not.
I'm sorry to those who don't like it, but that is the future of Hollywood and of this franchise. I cannot stand behind the idea that this production was misguided by anyone without proof to single out that this was a momentary lapse of judgment and a one time deal. We don't know if it was and we never will because who knows if a leak of this nature will ever happen again and it certainly never happened in the past so we cannot make a sound judgment about any of it because we simply do. not. know how these films have been made in the past except for the fluffed public commentary versions they want us to hear to make them all sound like perfect little angels.
It's not unheard of in Hollywood for writers to go by a 'Bible' of sorts when writing for a franchise, a giant book of do's and don'ts, but you know what? After the success of Skyfall, who can honestly blame them for wanting to see what Logan had up his sleeve if they just threw everything into the air and said "Give us your best shot, no limitations, just go for it" to see what came out the other side? And guess what? Like a lot of early script work, it sucked. Boo hoo, writers come up with crappy ideas for giant franchises daily. Joker killing Bruce Wayne's parents, anybody? Superman leveling an entire city? Single-handedly ruining the Phoenix Saga by making Jean Grey a bloody henchwoman!? And I'm still not over Bond In Space, to be quite honest. So my point is, we don't know the goings on behind the scenes except for this one example so to point fingers and say its not the norm when we do not know what exactly the norm behind the scenes is, is a complete waste of time.
Also, the finger pointing and blatant blasting of a members personal taste in film and then not taking them seriously or letting their opinions be taken seriously due to a number of posts on a message board; are you kidding me right now? How utterly childish.
This I agree with in general (I don't wish to get involved in this particular back and forth).
I have seen it a lot in this forum on various threads in the past few months and it's quite silly & ridiculous. An argument or point of view should rest on its own and be debated on its own. A member should not have some revered status due to how long he/she has been a member or how many posts he/she has contributed to this site. It's the quality of their specific argument at a point in time that defines the case. Even members who may have made vast contributions to the site (for which we are all grateful) over the years or who have made good arguments in the past can make a stupid or ridiculous argument at a point in time. So can I (in fact, I have on many occassions). Then they, and I, should be called out on it, should just acknowedge it and move one.
If not, one has the recipe for an inbred site which I'm sure no one here wants.
Even the studio-approved documentaries at least hint as some of the trouble. Inside From Russia With Love does have details on the scripting process, including how Maibaum didn't solve the problem of squeezing SPECTRE into the story until he did a draft after filming began.
The main difference with the hacking, we've seen part of the sausage making while production was underway.
Interesting, didn't know the bit about FRWL. And that movie turned out fine despite the fact.
guilty as well... and i've been a member here since before the boards were overhauled.
You should stop perpetuating the idea that there were issues with the script of Specte becasue there were disagreements between the producers, the executives and the director. It's not like Barbara Broccoli and Mendes loved the screenplay and the executives didn't find it commercial enough. They all agreed that the script was a mess.
Also, you make it sound like Bond is bigger than ever right now, even though it was much larger back in the 60s. By the way, Bond is still very much a family run franchise and Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson still make the final decisions.
Nobody is blaming them for letting Logan try to write the screenplay on his own. In fact, it was a brilliant move to finally push Purvis and Wade aside. What was wrong is that they didn't start developing the screenplay in time, and that once Logan hit a dead end they didn't act immediately.
Early script work? You have got to be kidding me... The script still sucked according to them just 5 months before the start of principal photogaphy. How on earth can you call script work so close to filming "early"? And that's exactly the issue here. There is absolutely nothing wrong with writing a terrible first draft long before the start of principal photography, but we are talking about a script that was still a mess about 20 months after the release of Skyfall.
Would you call a post like "LOL. Dude... Please stop..." a quality post? I wouldn't.
Agreed. I'm not commenting on the specific case here. It's just a general shout out that number of posts should not be taken as a barometer as it may potentially intimidate a new member (and there are a few on this thread) with something important to contribute. I saw a discussion stopped on another thread because someone pulled the 'number of posts' card and the junior member stopped posting. I would have preferred it continued because it was getting somewhere interesting.
Also just an aside, there is a major different @PanchitoPistoles between the entire script sucking and only an act of which you are still wrong on. When a majority is good and a portion is not, the script in its entirety does not suck. Also, compared to the 60s, its never been bigger. And I never said this is the biggest its ever been, that was your own take away from my post and not my words. And you can say Bond is an entirely family run business still all you like but its currently just not the case anymore.
Also, 2012 drafting ideas isn't early enough for you. I'd be curious to know how much time you apparently think is necessary then. However, I can't be bothered anymore.
None of us have to work with these people, so personally I am only concerned about the final product, and that ultimately is the film.
So far, it looks good, maybe more than good. I really don't care how much turmoil was endured to get to the point we're at, but that has everything to do with the fact that I am reasonably good, with where we seem to be now. That could change, but for now, I'm good.
My main concern is minimizing the personal drama that causes Bond to lose his mojo (thank you @waverly, that's a very handy turn of phrase), combined with having exciting Bond adventure in the 007 tradition, that has persisted through the decades.
I think these concerns have been addressed by the filmmakers. We saw progess with SF, and I think we are getting even more back to mojo Bond, and less tortured Bond, with SP. QoS is slowly fading away.
@km16 gives us good context. Very illuminating. ie all sort of crazy stuff goes on in Hollywood regarding getting a picture made.The Eon turmoil is hardly unprecedented. A lot of crazy stuff goes on behind the scenes in any business, I would think.
I am just guessing but @panchito proably would be happier, if he was happier with what we know about the script in its current form. If one isn't,it's only natural to lash out at the process, as its the process that got us here. No?
So bitch away, if the process isn't working for you. I think that's only natural.
But if you are happy, what's there to bitch about. Nothing really, especially if you don't have to work with these loons.
Now I did read elsewhere, some rather broad assumptions about Bond fans verus general public and such, also something about fanboy wetting, nostalgia and rose-tinted glassess. :) Very well.
But I do say, that anyone that buys a ticket to a Bond film is a Bond fan. What distinguishes the so-called fan boys, is that they are more invested in the product. They have deeper knowledge and spend more money, and invest far more time in experiencing and using the product, and guess what, it's this fanboy group that every business on the planet targets with its market research resources.
All companys spend big $$ surveying and studying their core customer base.
If you don't, you will lose your customers, and you won't have any idea why.
What bothers and excites the so-called casual customer is the same as what bothers or excites the fan-boy customer.
The product either works or it doesn't. eg so-called casual fans that didn't like QoS probably don't like it for the same reasons, that negative fanboys don't like it, and conversely, casual fans that did like the film, probably liked it for the same reason that fanboy-fans liked it. The fanboys though, being more invested both financially and emotionally are the ones that make the noise, pro and con.
Everybody saw the same film. But its the fanboys that will take time to give the feedback.
A business only has feedback from those that give it feedback. Market research firms, polling firms, marketing consultancies etc are a thriving business sector, in any healthy economy, as they try and drag that feedback out of the marketplace, in the never ending quest to grow the business.
My point being - serious business enterprises do pay attention to their core customer base. Why would you not? Keep them happy, respond to their needs, and your chances of expanding and growing are that much greater.
I am not going to argue this point.
If you don't believe me, open a business, bring a product to market and see how long you last without paying attention to your customers.
Unless you can extort the government into regulating a monopoly for your product, you better be listening to your customers,or you won't have any.
Here's why I don't think it's harsh.
1. Logan told Empire in early 2014 he was working closely with both Sam Mendes and with Daniel Craig. Unless Logan was lying, Mendes should have had *some idea* how things were going.
2. Logan made his Bond 24/Bond 25 pitch in 2012. Unless his pitch consisted of, "Let me write something up and see how it goes," Barbara Broccoli should have had *some idea* what Logan was doing. It certainly seems unlikely Logan would get a two-picture deal based on such a sketchy pitch. Later, in early 2013, Baz Bamigboye said some kind of treatment for both Bond 24 and Bond 25 existed.
3. Bamigboye (who, as noted before as a good track record for accuracy on his Bond reporting) said both Mendes and Craig were responsible for summoning Purvis and Wade back. Yet, Logan says he was working closely with both.
Maybe Logan wasn't working as closely with Mendes as he made it sound. Maybe Logan sprung a surprise on all concerned. In any case, about a year passed from the time the two-picture idea was scrapped to Logan turning in his first draft. Logan, Mendes and Broccoli all had other irons in the fire during much of 2013.
Solution; put Logan on the banned list, with Haggis and Forster ( at least I hope they are on the banned list).
I wouldn't call Logan a villain. This is, after all, just a movie. I would like to know what Logan pitched (it must have been interesting to get a two-movie deal, if only tentatively) and how it compared to the draft he submitted. But that's just an intellectual exercise at this point.
I agree with @timmer that EON has to look to its core customers first and foremost in order to retain them in the long run. I contend that is what made them go with Craig in the first place, and shake up the entire universe, getting it back to basics. I think they realized, despite increasing box office revenues, that they were losing the 'passion' of the core. At least for me, despite the recent drama that's been injected in scripts since CR (With the likes of Haggis and now Logan), I'm enthused about Bond again. I wasn't quite so excited during the 90's/early 00's - at least since GE. I see myself as a core customer, and EON has addressed my concerns about its franchise. If they want to add in a little drama to appeal to the non-core masses (since everyone under the sun including Nolan & Marvel) are doing it currently, and it's the 'in' thing, then go ahead. Just don't let it get too cheesy or ridiculous please. They haven't so far, although the whole M thing in SF was borderline getting there for me. Thankfully the rest of the movie was entertaining enough with an excellent cast, superb characterisations and beautifully made/shot, despite all the plot holes. That's what I want as a core customer.
If they can keep the same level of drama and add in a little mojo (and this is what SP seems to be shaping up to be from what I've read) then I remain all in......fully invested......enthused.
Regarding the script development, I'm in agreement with @AlexanderWaverly's last post & generally with what @panchitopistoles has been saying. I'm not an expert on these matters but I do handle some pretty large projects in my work with creative minds. As I said in an earlier post, It seems to me that these creative writing types (e.g. Logan) have been given a little too much rope with which to hang themselves by EON over the past few movies, and they should be kept on a tighter leash during the creative process. It should have been possible to at least have an idea early on about the high level direction the script was headed in. So they could have nipped anything that was too 'out there' in the early drafts. It just seems pointless to give someone that much rope with which to hang himself and then have to spend a few months cleaning it up (with the very duo you initially did not call back) after dismissing him.
At the end of the day, I'd prefer if B25 were not handled only by P&W (god no!). I want Logan, or Haggis, or Butterworth or a big gun like them involved too, but on the polishing end where they work better. I think P&W work better on the basic scripting due to their familiarity with Bond's universe. This time around, it happened the other way round.
Just my two cents.
I think rm16 and a number of other posters are 100% spot on that chaos in a preproduction process is very typical in the industry. It must be hell to get any film made, particularly one as huge as Spectre. Likening this Bond's scripting effort to Tarintino's and Nolan's scripting efforts doesn't work. They are writer directors who have singular control over their scripting and preproduction time line. Still, it would be interesting to see some of Tarintino's and Nolan's emails with studio exec's and when Tarintino's latest film script got leaked, he simply stopped the project.
Some Doom Sayers on here (not Naming names) also swore that the SPECTRE would be postponed until 2016 because they hadn't announced a press conference date yet, this in spite of the fact we had set construction photos. Panic much?
Let's all enjoy the SPECTRE journey together. 2015 can't come soon enough...