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
There's an increasing amount of 'shoot the messenger' on the web in recent years, probably because of the trolls who really can't post anything of real value who make up stuff for their jollies.
In the last couple of years, I've been posting a lot about a guy -- his main gig for quite awhile was adult films -- who has released some self published books purporting to tell the unknown truth about the original STAR TREK series, based on access to original memos. Some major claims about the show being cancelled not due to bad ratings but due to network hatred of show creator Roddenberry. Lots of other whoppers, too, but people are just eating it up like you wouldn't believe.
One small group of serious trek devotees took to going through the memos at USC and other places themselves ... and they found that rather than accurately reproducing the memos, this guy was being very selective about what he printed, and altering the content as he saw fit. So instead of a definitive journalistic account, what we are getting is whole-cloth invention wrapped in a blanket of accurate revelation.
Yet even when presented with accurate reproductions of the actual memos, trek devotees still seem to want to believe these books, which for me points up the LIBERTY VALLANCE 'print the legend' credo once more.
And there are more scams with these things ... like running a kickstarter campaign to get the third book to readers by xmas last year, saying the publisher needs money in advance or he won't go forward with the author's book ... WHEN THESE GUYS ARE ONE & THE SAME! Plus lifting images uncredited from a place doing photo-restoration of old damaged frames, the list just goes on & on ... but the more evidence of wrongdoing that gets offered, the more one gets interrogated as to 'what is YOUR angle?/what do you stand to benefit from discrediting this hardworking writer who spent years painstakingly going through memos ... ' etc.
It's thoroughly disheartening to see this kind of ferocity emerge only when somebody tries to keep the lemmings from sipping the kool-aid because it has the franchise name emblazoned upon it. You'd figure they be that way when they found out they were being conned, but instead it is endless iterations of ' ... in your opinion' about stuff that is actually there in black&white and not a matter of opinion or supposition.
I actually don't imagine Eon goes in for Abrams level deception with protecting plot points ... but if you were being dealt an Alec Leamas hand, expected to dole this out so it would be dutifully swallowed in order to protect Mundt as London's man or the actual SPECTRE conclusion, THAT would be more of a revelation or surprise to me than any of these proposed plot turns. But hey, I'm game to find out!
Exactly: There isn't really any way to prove what I'm saying except to wait and see. And I'm also aware there's a chance that things will change which will no doubt serve as "proof" for some that I'm being fraudulent.
But I'm not selling anything here. I've kept this info strictly to this one thread because I've no desire to force it on anyone else. I'm aware this is quite a major story and I guess I could take it to any number of outlets but I don't wish to step on EON's toes either. I don't like being insulted, for sure, but I also don't really give a rat's proverbial about acquiring any status on some forum. I just wanted, as a Bond fan, to talk with other Bond fans about what I've heard; and even if you only want to approach what I'm saying as a "what if?" scenario, I can't see that it does any harm or warrants strong pejorative terms in reaction. For me, it's win-win: It's an interesting conversation if it's accurate; and if it isn't, as a fan of DC, I'll be happy to see him stay. I'd personally like to see Idris Elba get a shot at the part but being that that's unlikely, there's no-one else I've seen mentioned that interests me.
We all want to see the series continue in good health: I hope we have that much in common.
(same spoiler info)
Exactly.
And IF the movie ends as it ends in the leaked script, then I would change my source if I were you.
As I said before: the script has nothing to do with Craig leaving or not.
Even if they kill Bond off in SPECTRE, Craig could come back in the next installment. Because there is no such thing as continuity in the Bond franchise. Every movie CAN be connected to another movie, but doesn't have to.
The movies don't have to be related.
I disagree - because the Craig films, unlike the other actors' tenures, do have a tightly-woven continuity they stick to, the SPECTRE trailers and promo material (there's even a special featurette on that on the upcoming steelbooks - EON are making a big deal out of this) makes that clear as day. If they suddenly decide to forget all that for B25, that's just ruining everything they've built up to before - with the previous Craig films all being part of one story.
Be definitive even in this post you give yourself way out. Either be definitively wrong or right but be definitive either Craig is coming back or he isn't
As I said, the movies CAN but don't have to be linked to each other.
If they choose to link a movie to the previous one, okay.
But if they decide to do a standalone movie, it's also okay. Even in the Craig era.
And even IF they kill off Bond ... hey, it's still a fictional movie!!!
They can have him alive and well without any explanation in the next movie. That's just my two cents.
But we don't have to discuss this, because nothing we read or saw hints at Bond dying in Spectre.
Well, we've read the same December script and I disagree : to my eyes, it looks indeed like a final movie for Craig. If it's not, then IMO this will really start to look like no one is caring about the slightest feeling of coherency in the Craig movies. If he comes back after this, he can wear a T-shirt "I'm in it for the money" during all the production.
@dmwalker, did you read the December script ? I can really imagine someone summarizing this to me as "Craig won't return".
And don't forget they told you they planned "more extreme options". It sounds like the more extreme options should then be in older versions of the script, no ? Well, we indeed have a more extreme option in some leaked versions ("Bond kills his brother and throws his gun in the Thames after that because he doesn't need it anymore").
As I wrote before, I think one does not need yet another new script to be coherent with what you were told. And as other have pointed out, the images stolen from production follow that December script at every turn, we could track the scene numbers here and there thanks to the clapperboard. On some occasions it was one scene number off, but on most, it was straight from the December script. They most probably did shoot the final scene as is described in the December script. As late as then, then it was still not changed..
Also, if I remember well, you can read in the leaks that "Bond's last mission" was a hook of the very early scripts (that we don't have) listed by the producers in 2014. It's not something they considered only very recently...
For me it's reads like Bond taking an time off from the job, just like he did in every old movie at the end, when he enjoys himself with the girl.
He throws his gun in the river, yes. But that's an emotional action he takes right out of the moment.
It's not like: "Hey, I don't like this job anymore, I won't come back." At least I don't interpretate it that way.
There will always be a reason for Bond to come back.
And by the way: Craig commits himself more to the part than most of the previous actors. If he comes back, it's not for the money. Because he doesn't need that. He's got enough.
Oberhauser never was or is his brother, not even his foster brother. Bond did NOT get adopted by Oberhauser Sr.
I don't share this mindset that you and some others seem to have. I didn't post this info to seem like a "Big Guy" on the MI6 forums. It's not some kind of challenge to you or anyone else. Being definitively right isn't important to me; and being believed isn't so important to me either, except in so far as I'd rather discuss the issue than write posts like this.
I was told what I was told by an impeccable source. I have reached out to a member here whom I believe to be trusted with more specific information and I think he knows I'm on the level, though I can completely understand that he wouldn't want to go so far as to endorse what I'm saying. But the simple fact is that what's true now may not remain true: Craig may decide at the last moment that he wants to stay. I'm not going to say that's impossible, even if I thought it would make a blind bit of difference to those who've decided I'm full of crap. Even disclosing my source wouldn't help with that - more likely it would give them more fuel. I'd only say that the film and theatre industry in the UK is not terribly big and if you've worked in it for nearly 25 years, as I have, the people who seem very lofty and unattainable from a fan perspective are just your peers and colleagues. I've never met the likes of Spielberg or Scorsese but I wouldn't be accusing someone who'd worked in Hollywood that long of being a fantasist for saying that they had.
I will say, though, that I find it ironic this information would be viewed, by some, as having more validity if it came from the likes of a showbiz "news" site, who have a vested financial interest in getting your attention. Their news usually comes from a FAR less credible source than either of mine. But that's the internet I guess.
And that, gentlemen, is as much as I'm going to say on the subject of my credibility. If you want to harangue me off the thread, keep going: It'll work. I passed on this info because I thought members here would be interested: I don't want to "suck the air" out of the thread. I thought we were past this and beginning to have an interesting discussion but maybe I was wrong.
And no, I'm not Idris Elba, hah! (I wish). And I wouldn't even joke about having Damien Lewis as Bond. Horrendous idea.
Didn't your source tell you, that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to return (because of the script)?
IF the ending of the movie makes it possible for Bond to return, then we really have nothing to discuss here.
This is maybe so, suivez, if your interpretation is correct. I haven't read any drafts but it's plausible they might have meant it that way. It would explain why they were both indiscreet and oddly nonchalant about it.
As it stands, yes. But perhaps you are not familiar with the process of editing and ADR? You'd be amazed what can change at the last moment: Rosebud could have been a dog, not a sled. Bruce Willis might not have been a ghost. And Lazenby might have driven off into the sunset with his bride, to the joyous sound of bells and mooing cows. All part of the magic of film-making.
You can't be sure is the last mission or nor for Craig just with the script, the only thing we can be sure is that we doesn't know.
@Suivez_ce_parachute In the 1st december script (there are just one december script, no ?) : Bond kills doesnt kill Ober but is still and throws his gun in the Thames and say he "doesn't need it anymore".
Can you imagine if we had Internet forums back in the days of moonraker? It's impossible for Bond/Moore to return because he and Goodhead are boinking each other while stranded in space!
On a serious note though, SP is really THE Bond movie to see just to see who's right and who's wrong with all this will he or won't he be back business.
Actually @Suivez_ce_parachute - from what I've seen, they have definitely tweaked the third act, not as much as between the October and December, but definitely did change. Changes including but not limited to, the whole "personal effects" thing with MP and Bond early on (that we definitely reshot, and even they shot her giving him the effects at the Foreign Office), the location of the barracks scene has been moved to a safehouse next to Trafalgar Sq, M now fights C at the CNS (that's in the trailer) - "author of all your pain" etc....so I won't be surprised if there are other changes to the ending. That being said I don't think they'll be that drastic, but if @dmwalker is correct maybe they did make a bigger change to the ending.
Only way IMO Craig can come back after SPECTRE without it being "I'm in it for the money" like you say, is if they do a book-accurate YOLT in B25, starting with Madeleine being offed. And the book-accurate kill Blofeld/amnesia/living peacefully as a fisher in Japan with Bond girl ending would be brilliant, maybe an even better ending for Craig's era than riding off into sunset with Madeleine here.
I've said this before - IMO the ending as presented in the December drafts works both as an ending to Craig era, and a continuation into a YOLT-esque B25.
I am as I work in the film industry, too.
And I know that you can only cut away, what you have shot before.
And Bond can only be killed if the script was rewritten.
We know there were minor changes made in the script, like Bond vs. C became M vs. C etc.
We also know that the very last scene of the December script has been filmed.
And I know that the "We have all the time in the world"-line could be understood as an eternal goodbye from Bond. But I'm pretty sure it isn't.
Could be fun to re-read this thread after the movie came out.
IF Craig himself simply doesn't want to do another one, that's another story.
1) "Craig won't do another one"
&
2) "Someone working on the movie think it's impossible for Craig to come back".
I think 1) will happen but it's an hypothesis, we'll know the answer only when the next movie after SPECTRE is announced, or a search for a new actor is announced. You won't have your answer at the end of SPECTRE I think.
I think 2) could be true, and the current script could explain it alone. "Resignation", "Throwing the gun in the Thames", "Post-MI6 Bond breaking into Q lab to steal the DB5", "Bond saying to Q he's gone", "We Have All The Time In The World", well someone can read it as "Craig leaves" IMO. Heck, I do :)
You said:
"They've tried for that development in the Craig series and, imo, they've not done it terribly well. CASINO ROYALE was brilliant but - if I'm honest - a little confused. Bond seemed a bit too old to be just getting his 007 status, Judi Dench was still playing M and, frankly, he seemed very much like he'd become the Bond we all know from the moment he met Eva Green. But then, in QOS, they were telling us, "no, hold on, he's not Bond yet" and he did, indeed, seem less like our sophisticated killer than he'd been in the previous film. Then, suddenly, in SKYFALL, he's "over the hill" with all kinds of doubts about his capabilities, 007 by way of THE EXPENDABLES, except no - hold on: Now we've got a male M, in his office, a new Q and Moneypenny and finally, THIS is James Bond, this is him, now.... except who's he been in what seems like it must have been a missing decade of adventures, before he got all clapped-out and retirey (and still no gun-barrel at the top!)"
This is exactly how I feel too about the Craig era.
They made 3 movies where the same actor practically plays three different Bonds.
Frankly, imo the Craig-era is a mess and the more I think about it the more I hope SP will be the last one in that reboot-era that never really worked.
And if Spectre turns out to be a classic Bond like GE, TSWLM, FRWL or TLD then it's fabulous to at last get one fully proper Bond movie in this era, but I doubt it with Mendes at the helm.
That's what I love.
It would be boring if they continue with Bond not developing his character.
He has to be a different person at the end of the movie. Believe me: that's what makes a movie way more timeless and well received in the future, than a movie with a flat character.
That's a general tenet of good drama, but I gotta tell you, if the Connery at the end of FRWL collapsed in a trembling mess after playing toesies with Klebb, it would not be the movie I measure all other Bond movies against.
Sometimes I think that some here who wish that EON leaves the genre movies for more general crowd pleasing movies that follow the more classic rules of drama (like Skyfall and SPECTRE), actually suffer from Bond fatigue :)
That's an interesting thought. Innovating while remaining within the general parameters of Bond is a neat tightrope act, arguably tougher than going outside the box for one. It is kind of like STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION's rules against conflict among the regular cast - it hamstrings conventional drama like crazy, but if you can pull it off, you've got a helluva story (few and far between, but even so!)
For me LTK is innovating while within the general parameters, but for many that one steps way away from their bond comfort zone. My zone generally excludes extended slapstick, which takes most Moore pics out of the running pretty quickly, but others love those elements.