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

16667697172112

Comments

  • aaron819aaron819 Switzerland
    Posts: 1,208
    From looking at the script last night regarding the Mexico scenes. I think that they have finished filming yesterday and now the 2nd unit move to Palenque, Mexico and the main unit now return to Pinewood. I suppose the interior scenes for the apartment where Bond is looking at the dialogue in between Sciarra and Gallo - that will probably be filmed at Pinewood. We can say that today is the last day of filming.
  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 512
    aaron819 wrote: »
    From looking at the script last night regarding the Mexico scenes. I think that they have finished filming yesterday and now the 2nd unit move to Palenque, Mexico and the main unit now return to Pinewood. I suppose the interior scenes for the apartment where Bond is looking at the dialogue in between Sciarra and Gallo - that will probably be filmed at Pinewood. We can say that today is the last day of filming.

    The main unit will film until the 5th of April I believe.
  • Posts: 87
    as this is the spoiler page, got to ask the question are there any gadgets in the aston martin db 10 ?
  • Posts: 3,164
    Henderson wrote: »
    as this is the spoiler page, got to ask the question are there any gadgets in the aston martin db 10 ?
    Yes. Flamethrower, machine gun and ejector seat.
  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    antovolk wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    The screenplay - claimed to be the shooting version - is back online. I have a copy. Yet to read it but it looks legit. Obviously I don't want post the link as I don't want Sony to send its spy drones to my laptop. :D

    I'll have read it by tomorrow and if anyone wants the whole film ruined/explained - I can do so but you'll have to swear not to mention it to anyone! ;))
    On this thread please do explain away. I've already forgotten as much as I remember.
    So exposition is helpful.

    Another question.
    How does Bond know where to find White? I am sure that has been answered but I forgot. :(

    "The job at Mondsee/assasination of the Pale King" is mentioned during the SPECTRE Rome meeting. Moneypenny finds out the Pale King is White.

    So it's a case of Bond getting to White before Spectre...
  • Posts: 3,278
    "Atmosphere" , "Exhaust", "Air" and "Backfire."
  • Posts: 270
    I have been rereading the script today. I might have an old version. In mine it has Waltz saying the line from the trai "Welcome, Stranger" not Welcome James. Is the copy I have the old draft?
  • Posts: 625
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Here's a major spoiler I just found out!

    Judi Dench's M appears in Spectre. She appears on a video disc. A message to Bond prior to her demise.

    Come on.
    Tomorrow it's already April.
    The script is online since December, and the Judi Dench cameo was discussed here 3 months ago.

    By the way: the link to it worked all the time. It was never down.
  • Posts: 3,164
    hthomas20 wrote: »
    I have been rereading the script today. I might have an old version. In mine it has Waltz saying the line from the trai "Welcome, Stranger" not Welcome James. Is the copy I have the old draft?

    Nope - remember they cut a lot of lines together from different bits of the film for the trailer. Should be as in the script.

    If yours has 12 1 14 in the filename then that's the one they're using and will likely end up the film.
  • Posts: 625
    hthomas20 wrote: »
    I have been rereading the script today. I might have an old version. In mine it has Waltz saying the line from the trai "Welcome, Stranger" not Welcome James. Is the copy I have the old draft?

    No, it's the new one.
    But I think they just changed this while filming it on set.

    It's like Waltz asking Mendes: "What do you think about saying "James" instead of "stranger"? And Mendes answers: "Okay. Let's give it a try."
    And then he decided to keep it that way in the movie.

    Could be that he decides to put a different take in the movie where he says "Welcome stranger"

    We will see.
  • Posts: 669
    The "Welcome, James" as opposed to "Welcome, stranger" is the only line change from the script, I noticed. All the rest is taken exactly from the 1-12-14 draft.
  • Posts: 1,552
    We've only heard snippets of lines, whist I agree that the Dec draft is highly likely to be the main shooting script, you have to remember that rewrites of lines and of scenes are fairly common in film productions. They have a scene on the paper that, when rehearsed or filmed, don't work as well, so they change some lines around, cut some, add others. What we see on screen, whilst extremely close, will not necessarily be word for word from the script.

    As @Jan1985 mentioned, actors often suggest lines to a director during production, some directors are purists to the scripts they're working with and will say "No, stick to the script", others will say "Sure, we'll do a take with that line, see if it works".
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 3,164
    I disagree @JCRendle @Jan1985 that they've actually changed that bit in the film, as it will dampen if not nullify the impact of the reveal that Bond is actually there. Like I said, probably cut together with Oberhauser saying James elsewhere in the film.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 1,552
    @antovolk I wasn't talking specifically about that scene, but in general. I'm just saying that the film might not match up word for word.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 1,661
    Read about three quarters of screenplay. Do have one major concern. There doesn't seem to any real threat by the villain! There is the subplot involving C getting the vote for the Nine Eyes operation but there is no plot by the villain. I've got to page 82 - when Bond and Madeline are on the train and still waiting for the villain to reveal his plot, his masterplan.

    Bond tracking down Oberhauser throughout the story is not the same as Oberhauser revealing his intentions in act one of the storyline. I'm not sure there is a clearly defined villain in SPECTRE.


    Will continue on... and see how the story pans out.

  • edited March 2015 Posts: 1,661
    Read it all! Hmm, didn't like it much. It was okay-ish.

    I didn't get the relationship between Bond and Oberhauser. There seemed some tenuous link to Bond's past but it didn't really amount to much other than to allow Purvis and Wade to re-introduce a Texas Hold Em game back into the Bond universe. The card game felt like a rehash of Casino Royale. And Bond used his exploding watch to escape. I can't remember if the watch was mentioned earlier on.

    I don't feel making Bond films with Bond's backstory as the main thrust of the storyline works that well. I found the storyline a bit cheesy. C turned out to be a cheesy traitor within. To be fair, when it's up on the screen with great action scenes, moody music, cool cinematography, good acting etc - I'm sure it will entertain many people but I've grown tired of the Purvis/Wade 'personal missions' Craig era.

    Based on my first reading of the screenplay, I didn’t get how Bond knew the name Oberhauser. When he meets Q in Austria he mentions Oberhauser’s name but how did he get that name? Where/what was the source for that information?

    I feel the storyline has no underlying threat. There is no great sense Bond’s world is in danger. I accept the Babs and MG have moved away from ‘Bond stopping the nuke from destroying the world’ type plots but I feel SPECTRE lacks a real threat. Oberhauser sees information as the new weapon, he can control anyone but what is control if we don't see what he gets out of it?

    I didn't get any sense SPECTRE was SPECTRE. It felt like Eon got the rights back to SPECTRE and just used the name for the title and a way to link the previous films together. I'd have preferred SPECTRE using some weapon against the 00 division or the free world. Some real tangible threat. Spectre seemed a bit too low key in SPECTRE - just monitoring screens and committing terrorist acts. Not quite the scale of the old SPECTRE.

    I thought the battle at Oberhauser's house/compund felt too similar to the battle at Greene's compound in QOS. Both locations set in the desert, both blow up.

    Hinx just turned up where Bond was. I don't know how he tracked Bond - we never saw him tracking 007. He just pops up like Jaws version 2!

    It's more of the same, I guess. Slightly contrived plotting, Bond escaping places with explosions, the villain having some backstory. Skyfall part 2, I guess. I wouldn't mind recasting Bond and trying to bring back some major threat to the world. Reduce Bond's backstory, reduce M and Moneypenny's role. New writers, clean slate again.





  • Posts: 625
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Read about three quarters of screenplay. Do have one major concern. There doesn't seem to any real threat by the villain! There is the subplot involving C getting the vote for the Nine Eyes operation but there is no plot by the villain. I've got to page 82 - when Bond and Madeline are on the train and still waiting for the villain to reveal his plot, his masterplan.

    Bond tracking down Oberhauser throughout the story is not the same as Oberhauser revealing his intentions in act one of the storyline. I'm not sure there is a clearly defined villain in SPECTRE.


    Will continue on... and see how the story pans out.

    The plan is to get total control over all intelligence services.
    And to get every nation to say yes to the plan, SPECTRE performs terrorist attacks all around the world to show them that they can't prevent it with their current secret services.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Sounds like a good scheme to me. And close to reality.
  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    Problem>Reaction>Solution.

    It's the aspect of this Bond tale that is steeped in reality. Although MI6 are still represented as the goodies of course.

    Spoiler alert:

    ''He takes a drink of HEINEKIN.''

    Bond has truly appalling taste in beer. What a luddite.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I think this must be my 2nd post in here. I just wanted to say: I'm still surprised that this topic is so insanely popular. I'd like to be spoiled the old way, not the illegal way :-). Enjoy you all.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited March 2015 Posts: 16,359
    I think this must be my 2nd post in here. I just wanted to say: I'm still surprised that this topic is so insanely popular. I'd like to be spoiled the old way, not the illegal way :-). Enjoy you all.

    Then why come to the spoiler thread if you don't want to be spoiled? 8-|

    Are your threads not getting enough attention so you need to remind everybody how much you hate the spoilers thread?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    AVB wrote: »
    Problem>Reaction>Solution.

    It's the aspect of this Bond tale that is steeped in reality. Although MI6 are still represented as the goodies of course.

    Spoiler alert:

    ''He takes a drink of HEINEKIN.''

    Bond has truly appalling taste in beer. What a luddite.

    What? I am drinking Heineken right now. Oh yeah, I agree it does not taste good. It is just for getting drunk and forgetting about this board.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Murdock wrote: »
    I think this must be my 2nd post in here. I just wanted to say: I'm still surprised that this topic is so insanely popular. I'd like to be spoiled the old way, not the illegal way :-). Enjoy you all.

    Then why come to the spoiler thread if you don't want to be spoiled? 8-|

    Are your threads not getting enough attention so you need to remind everybody how much you hate the spoilers thread?
    I think he might have heard someone had popped open a case of free Heineken. Need to get better locks for the door. ;)

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Spoiled brats!
  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    fanbond123 wrote: »
    Read it all! Hmm, didn't like it much. It was okay-ish.

    I didn't get the relationship between Bond and Oberhauser. There seemed some tenuous link to Bond's past but it didn't really amount to much other than to allow Purvis and Wade to re-introduce a Texas Hold Em game back into the Bond universe. The card game felt like a rehash of Casino Royale. And Bond used his exploding watch to escape. I can't remember if the watch was mentioned earlier on.

    He got the watch from Q, obviously. The link is very tenuous indeed.
    I don't feel making Bond films with Bond's backstory as the main thrust of the storyline works that well. I found the storyline a bit cheesy. C turned out to be a cheesy traitor within. To be fair, when it's up on the screen with great action scenes, moody music, cool cinematography, good acting etc - I'm sure it will entertain many people but I've grown tired of the Purvis/Wade 'personal missions' Craig era.

    It's weak, which is what I expected, and not particularly creative as Waltz suggested. Very cliched unfortunately. Ober-Feld's personal motivation toward Bond isn't even necessary. His back story pre-Oberhauser is great and real, but brushed under the carpet in favour of this personal connection to Bond. That takes over when it shouldn't even be there. I sense intelligent audience members may feel patronised here.
    I feel the storyline has no underlying threat. There is no great sense Bond’s world is in danger. I accept the Babs and MG have moved away from ‘Bond stopping the nuke from destroying the world’ type plots but I feel SPECTRE lacks a real threat. Oberhauser sees information as the new weapon, he can control anyone but what is control if we don't see what he gets out of it?

    Well that is the world we live in now. It was also a central premise of Skyfall, where Silva mocks Bond for essentially being a relic and living in the dark ages of espionage, running around and chasing spies. You can't make a modern Bond film where he is chasing after a warhead. This is 2015 and naturally Spectre have a more covert mode of operations and more subtle, nuanced end goal. Unfortunately this very credible motive is undermined by Ober-Felds sophomoric jealousy of Bond.

    The modern Spectre is great and exactly what I envisaged it to be.
    I didn't get any sense SPECTRE was SPECTRE. It felt like Eon got the rights back to SPECTRE and just used the name for the title and a way to link the previous films together. I'd have preferred SPECTRE using some weapon against the 00 division or the free world. Some real tangible threat. Spectre seemed a bit too low key in SPECTRE - just monitoring screens and committing terrorist acts. Not quite the scale of the old SPECTRE.

    See above. I'm sure the fact that all these terrorist attacks are broadcast over the global media is tangible enough for an audience, and something we will relate very directly too.
    I thought the battle at Oberhauser's house/compund felt too similar to the battle at Greene's compound in QOS. Both locations set in the desert, both blow up
    .

    It's a minor comparison.
    Hinx just turned up where Bond was. I don't know how he tracked Bond - we never saw him tracking 007. He just pops up like Jaws version 2!

    Ober-Feld knew Bond/Swann were coming. He was likely communicating with Hinx.
    It's more of the same, I guess. Slightly contrived plotting, Bond escaping places with explosions, the villain having some backstory. Skyfall part 2, I guess. I wouldn't mind recasting Bond and trying to bring back some major threat to the world. Reduce Bond's backstory, reduce M and Moneypenny's role. New writers, clean slate again.

    I think my main gripe is that M, MP, Q and Bond have all gone a bit Mission Impossible. Q has been in the field before, sometimes it makes sense, but Bond should imo be alone in the field or with a liason like Felix or Mathieu. I also don't appreciate what they've done with Eve/MP. She went from a field operative to a secretary and now she's actually doing stuff in the field again. But she's a secretary. Wait no, she's also eligible for field action?! Good grief. I would have written Eve as a field agent in SF, had Silva kill her instead of Severine on the Island, and then had a traditional MP who can help Bond with small stuff.

    I think it's relatively well written as a piece, but with some very juvenile writing and Bond's sarcasm is on overdrive here yet without being charming. The final act is a weird one though. Not sure about that one, especially the ending which is certainly not Bond just going on vacation. The film as a whole definitely has many classic Bond elements, moreso than any other in the Craig era, but again is sort of stuck between two worlds. It's funny how Mendes is the one to have made the most fantastical films of the era, with CR and QoS being relatively grounded. Anyhow, some great scenes in there, particuarly Bond/White, which is pure Bond imo, and Bond/Swann's first meeting and train scene. Also the PTS will be wild. The film will look and feel spectacular - I'm looking forward to that as much as anything. I'm also sure the calibre of actor in the film will shine through; Craig, Waltz, Ralph, Seydoux, Wishaw are all top notch.

  • Posts: 270
    What scene is Waltz revealed to be blofeld?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Damn, I clicked on the spoiler, the film is ruined!
  • Posts: 1,552
    @hthomas20 You've mentioned in another thread that you have a copy of the script, if you're reading through, don't you want to save the reveal for yourself? Or do you want to skip ahead?
  • Posts: 270
    JCRendle wrote: »
    @hthomas20 You've mentioned in another thread that you have a copy of the script, if you're reading through, don't you want to save the reveal for yourself? Or do you want to skip ahead?

    I have the dec 1 draft. Starting reading today. I was skimming through but I felt like I read very closely. I never saw anything mention Blofeld. Maybe I have a old draft?
  • Posts: 1,552
    No need for spoiler tags in this particular thread
Sign In or Register to comment.