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

12425272930112

Comments

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    @km16 One more thing. Yes, in the case of several movies changes are made even during principal photography. Do you want me to list a few of those films? World War Z, Transformers 4, Quantum of Solace. On the other hand, a few films that had complete scripts before start of principal photography and they didn't have to rewrite anything: The Social Network, Inglorious Basterds, Inception.

    I would also like to mention that I believe there is nothing wrong with minor tweaks during filming or close to the start of filming, but a major rewrite during principal photography and in the couple of months leading up to the start of filming should be a big no-no.

    EDIT: Obviously, I am talking about mainstream movies. Terrence Malick or David Lynch doesn't even need any screenplay to make a great film.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 187
    km16 wrote: »
    To each his own but you couldn't be more wrong. Everyone was agreed with loving the script....until the third act. The rest everyone was completely fine with, and that is what went through the major changes after summer.

    Them agreeing on loving the first two acts happened in October, a mere two months before the start of filming. During the summer the script was still a mess. M was still a traitor back in July, so it's pretty clear that the whole screenplay was very different back then. (Not to mention the fact that Blofeld was a woman in the March draft, and a black African guy before that... it's obvious they had no idea what to do with that character.)
    km16 wrote: »
    Since then, it's just been minor tweaks here and there. Hardly last minute. Scripts go under the knife and changes are made well into shooting on most productions if need be. Hardly anything to sweat about.
    Hardly anything to sweat about? Yeah I guess that's why

    - Barbara Broccoli was furious with Mendes and Logan back in May
    - Mendes tried to quit and move release date back in June
    - Mendes was still really worried back in July
    - they were stuck at the end of August
    - the whole 3rd act was still very messy in October
    - they closed the deal with Waltz only during the last week of October (even though they were already in serious talks with him back in July) becasuse he had some issues with his character

    I'm not worried about Spectre, I've read the script and know what to expect. It won't be a disaster. Two things make me angry:

    1. The way they handled the development of the screenplay.
    2. That you and some other forum members are claiming there is nothing wrong with the fact that they were still rewriting a large portion of the script in November and that they had no problems during pre-production, even though it's there in the e-mails black and white that they had some serious problems.

    You do realize that when making movies, the script isnt completed months ahead to just lie on a table or sit on a harddrive for weeks or months untouched.....right? Its constantly tinkered with. Some pretty famous (and great overall) films had drastic last minute script changes. Look at all the what-ifs of this franchise in pre-production; Blofeld being a woman or black hardly shocks me considering some of the stuff they thought up in the past. (Bond ripping off portions of Die Hard style action for Daltons third, anyone?)

    The fact you seemingly have your knickers in a twist because of leaked emails over this one particular film is whats astounding given that 1) This is just one film and these shenanigans and goings on behind the scenes are par for the course in movie making year after year on hundreds of productions and 2) Because they are leaks, for all you, I, all of us know, this could be the routine leading into every Bond production since bloody Dr. No of people throwing hissyfits, extreme ideas being tossed around and threats of quitting. Its called collaborative creative process combined with big Hollywood egos; everybody wants their say. They weeded through the crap, they got the script together and its on with the show.

    But seriously, read more scripts. If this alarms you, go read through the different drafts leading up to '89 Batman and Batman Returns. Better yet, read up on Kevin Smith's time with Superman Lives; that producer gave Smith hell because he didnt want Superman to fly, he wanted the cape gone because he thought it was (in his own words) gay and wanted Supes to fight a giant spider just because he (the producer) admired spiders... and later he got his wish if youve seen Wild Wild West (same producer). And you think these people were nuts. Welcome to the nitty gritty of Hollywood politics.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    The plot with SPECTRE trying to take over the government is on par with an idea I brought up last year when having a debate about why Quantum should return in some form. Things are looking quite better to me. Should they go with Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers, I hope it's very very subtle and not thrown in your face. I still don't like that aspect but there's nothing I can do about it. I'm optimistic but I don't have high hopes which is normally good because I can be surprised if it's to my liking.
  • Posts: 4,619
    @km16 Just becasue a lot of shitty Hollywood blockbusters have crazy script developments, that doesn't make it normal and OK. In the case of Spectre, they already had all the locations locked in before they even knew whether Blofeld was black or white and a man or a woman! Don't tell me that's normal, or that it's a situation that's unavoidable. Look at Nolan or Tarantino, just to mention two names. They finish their scripts on time and don't have to rewrite them during production.

    You don't have to believe me when I say that Spectre had a very undesirable pre-production. Find the e-mails and read what they (Mendes, Broccoli and the Sony & MGM executives) said and how they felt.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    @km16 I have heard that Kevin Smith story like 10 times already. That's a very old story and completely different from the pre-production of Spectre. It's not "Hollywood politics" that nearly ruined this screenplay. It's a writer who didn't start writing the script on time and couldn't write a decent screenplay, and producers who were content with the writer starting working on the script only nearly a whole year after the release of Skyfall, and who were not acting in time when said writer was not producing results.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Nolan's not a very good writer. His scripts are too big and everybody talks in speeches. Nobody normal talks like that. I don't want his mits anywhere near Bond.
  • Posts: 187
    @km16 Just becasue a lot of shitty Hollywood blockbusters have crazy script developments, that doesn't make it normal and OK. In the case of Spectre, they already had all the locations locked in before they even knew whether Blofeld was black or white and a man or a woman! Don't tell me that's normal, or that it's a situation that's unavoidable. Look at Nolan or Tarantino, just to mention two names. They finish their scripts on time and don't have to rewrite them during production.

    You don't have to believe me when I say that Spectre had a very undesirable pre-production. Find the e-mails and read what they (Mendes, Broccoli and the Sony & MGM executives) said and how they felt.

    I read the emails weeks back and compared to most behind the scenes stuff I shift through dealing with Hollywood, their thoughts and comments are mere childs play. As I said, for all we know this could be par for the course for every entry, it is a 50+ year old franchise running low on original ideas. We only have leaks from one film with absolutely nothing else to compare it to from earlier in this franchise besides publicity 'fluff' to make their working team and the movie look good. One film is all you have to base it on and for all we know, Royale, GoldenEye, hell even Goldfinger, could have been production hell. So to worry and say the production was in shambles is just pretty ridiculous. They've been in this game long enough, theyre professionals and have brought this franchise back from the brink of creative death several times. They know what theyre doing and pre-production squabbles don't tear my peace of mind one bit.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan's not a very good writer. His scripts are too big and everybody talks in speeches. Nobody normal talks like that. I don't want his mits anywhere near Bond.

    You don't like him, fine. Have you ever wondered why most casual moviegoers and film critics all agree that he is currently one of the best writers and one of the best directors of big budget cinema?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan's not a very good writer. His scripts are too big and everybody talks in speeches. Nobody normal talks like that. I don't want his mits anywhere near Bond.

    You don't like him, fine. Have you ever wondered why most casual moviegoers and film critics all agree that he is currently one of the best writers and one of the best directors of big budget cinema?

    The general public prefer style over substance.

    This review sums up my problems with Nolan. The guy can direct but his writing leaves much to be desired.
    http://letterboxd.com/followtheblind/film/the-prestige/
  • Posts: 4,619
    @km16 One last reply to you, because we are running in circles: the script of CR was in a pretty great shape even before the Haggis polish.
    km16 wrote: »
    So to worry and say the production was in shambles is just pretty ridiculous.

    Three things:
    1. I'm guessing you mean pre-production.
    2. For the umpteenth time, I am not worried at all. How could I be? I have already read the result of the script writing process. The screenplay is what it is.
    3. Read the e-mail written by Amy Pascal on June 16th, the two e-mails Sam Mendes sent to Pascal on July 14th and the one Barbara Broccoli sent to Pascal on August 30th. Then tell me again that the pre-production wasn't in shambles during the summer...
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Murdock wrote: »
    The general public prefer style over substance.

    That's the criticism that makes the least sense. Name one Hollywood blockbuster in the last 5 years that is less "style over substance" than Inception or Interstellar. If there is one think Nolan is great at, then it is giving substance to big budget movies. If there is one thing he is bad at, it's style.

    And I'm not going to read that unnecessarily long opinion piece written by an internet troll about a movie I don't even like that much to begin with, and published on a New Zealand based website. I have better ways to spend my time.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    The general public prefer style over substance.

    That's the criticism that makes the least sense. Name one Hollywood blockbuster in the last 5 years that is less "style over substance"

    The Avengers. A grand scope Superhero movie that's also an ensemble film. Every character is given realistic dialogue without feeling overdone or pretentious.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Murdock wrote: »
    The Avengers.

    Please tell me that's a joke! I'm begging you!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    The Avengers.

    Please tell me that's a joke! I'm begging you!

    I'll take any Marvel film over anything Nolan's put out in the last decade.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The Avengers.

    Please tell me that's a joke! I'm begging you!

    I'll take any Marvel film over anything Nolan's put out in the last decade.

    Ok, fair enogh. At least now I know your opinion about Nolan and Marvel. My opinion is that your opinion is ridiculous. Avengers is a movie aimed at teenagers and made to sell toys, nothing more. By the way, are you that Egg MacGuffin person from letterboxd?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The Avengers.

    Please tell me that's a joke! I'm begging you!

    I'll take any Marvel film over anything Nolan's put out in the last decade.

    Ok, fair enogh. At least now I know your opinion about Nolan and Marvel. My opinion is that your opinion is ridiculous. Avengers is a movie aimed at teenagers and made to sell toys, nothing more. By the way, are you that Egg MacGuffin person from letterboxd?

    Why is my opinion ridiculous? Because I don't eat up everything Nolan puts out? Who cares who the Avengers was aimed at? And no I'm not that Egg MacgGuffin guy. Please. Don't make laugh. I wish I could write like that. I'm just some schmuck from Ohio.

    Just because Nolan gets all this praise doesn't mean he's untouchable to critics. I think he's overrated.

    Are your "tastes" in movies so refined you have to put people down?
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    Murdock wrote: »
    Are your "tastes" in movies so refined you have to put people down?

    Short answer: yes.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Why is my opinion ridiculous? Because I don't eat up everything Nolan puts out?

    Typical straw man argument... I certainly don't eat up everything Nolan directs. For example I find The Dark Knight vastly overrated. No, your opinion is ridiculous because you claim that The Avengers is less "style over substance" than Inception or Interstellar. The only thing The Avengers has is style.

    Nolan doesn't come anywhere close to being as great as someone like David Lynch, but he is easily one of the best (if not THE best) director of big budget movies nowadays and directors like Joss Whedon are a joke compared to him.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 187
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan's not a very good writer. His scripts are too big and everybody talks in speeches. Nobody normal talks like that. I don't want his mits anywhere near Bond.

    You don't like him, fine. Have you ever wondered why most casual moviegoers and film critics all agree that he is currently one of the best writers and one of the best directors of big budget cinema?

    Interstellar was pretty but unmemorable. TDKR was a mess compared to TDK and crapped all over the character and drive of Batman and his legacy. His smaller films were much better when he wasnt going for huge epics. He's nowhere near right for Bond.
    @km16 One last reply to you, because we are running in circles: the script of CR was in a pretty great shape even before the Haggis polish.
    km16 wrote: »
    So to worry and say the production was in shambles is just pretty ridiculous.

    Three things:
    1. I'm guessing you mean pre-production.
    2. For the umpteenth time, I am not worried at all. How could I be? I have already read the result of the script writing process. The screenplay is what it is.
    3. Read the e-mail written by Amy Pascal on June 16th, the two e-mails Sam Mendes sent to Pascal on July 14th and the one Barbara Broccoli sent to Pascal on August 30th. Then tell me again that the pre-production wasn't in shambles during the summer...

    - Considering that is your biggest gripe, yes, pre-production. And CR wasnt a mess that youre aware of. Out of many drafts I'm sure, not all were explicitly leaked compared with now, thus my previous point.
    - For the umpteenth time, youve been rambling on about how everything is/was in shambles and making normal Hollywood politics out to be some sort of scandal/tragedy averted. Everyone bickers and argues about everything in Hollywood, no one in power is sane. They get there from either inheritance or being out of their minds.
    - I told you I read the emails. Pure childs play, Hollywood dramatics. This is what goes on daily when not being fluffed up for the press. Again, I say to you welcome to the 'real' Hollywood creative machine. Glad you finally saw under the veil. These movies that you speak of that have virtually no scripting issues are ultimately are raritety and are in the minority. Re-writes, act changes, character changes, even location changes late or early in the process happens. Hell, even actors quit or drop dead. You pick up the pieces and shuffle on.
  • Posts: 1,490
    @km16 One more thing. Yes, in the case of several movies changes are made even during principal photography. Do you want me to list a few of those films? World War Z, Transformers 4, Quantum of Solace. On the other hand, a few films that had complete scripts before start of principal photography and they didn't have to rewrite anything: The Social Network, Inglorious Basterds, Inception.

    I would also like to mention that I believe there is nothing wrong with minor tweaks during filming or close to the start of filming, but a major rewrite during principal photography and in the couple of months leading up to the start of filming should be a big no-no.

    EDIT: Obviously, I am talking about mainstream movies. Terrence Malick or David Lynch doesn't even need any screenplay to make a great film.

    Many great and now classic films have had major re-writes during production, for example, just off the top of my head, Casablanca or The Big Sleep, Apocalypse Now, Jaws etc. Other films have had major re-shoots - Back To the Future actually re-cast their lead actor after 2 weeks shooting - And Mendes was unhappy with the more broad comic tone the studio was after for American Beauty and after a week of shooting Mendes bravely - remember he was a first time feature film director - went to the studio and requested they let him re-shoot everything and let him adjust the tone. His wishes, despite the added costs and time, were granted. The finished result won Best Film Oscar.

    The point I'm making is that films strive to be the best they can be, no one ever sets out to make a sub-standard film on purpose, so everyone works hard to get the best results. Big tent-pole release movies like Bond have added pressures, not just high audience expectation, but fixed release dates and huge amounts of money at stake, so to say making script changes - more than minor changes - in actual production should be, as you say, a "big no-no", is quite frankly pretty naive. All that matters is the final result. That's what people remember.

  • edited December 2014 Posts: 4,619
    @km16 Trust me, this isn't the first time I have seen under the veil.

    You referring to the pre-production issues of Spectre as "Hollywood politics" shows that you either have no idea what "Hollywood politics" means or you have only read a portion of the e-mails. There wasn't much bickering between the executives, the producers and Mendes during the pre-production of the movie. The problems were of a completely different nature.

    @ColonelSun All that doesn't change the fact that the script of Spectre was still a mess at the time when it should have been pretty much finished. And don't tell me it's OK that they had all the major locations locked in at the time when they had still no idea what to do with Blofeld and whether the character should be black or white and a man or a woman.

    There is nothing naive about saying that making script changes in actual production should be a "big no-no". If Nolan can manage to write scripts he is satisfied with on time 6 times in 10 years, then the Bond team should be able to deliver screenplays on time too. You are talking about rewriting the script in the last minute or even during production just to make a movie better. In the case of Spectre we are talking about them rewriting the script in the last minute becasue they were incompetent to produce a script on time. Big difference.
  • aaron819aaron819 Switzerland
    edited December 2014 Posts: 1,208
    I think we should set up a forum just for @PanchitoPistoles, because of his craziness about Spectre!!
  • Posts: 187
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    @km16 One more thing. Yes, in the case of several movies changes are made even during principal photography. Do you want me to list a few of those films? World War Z, Transformers 4, Quantum of Solace. On the other hand, a few films that had complete scripts before start of principal photography and they didn't have to rewrite anything: The Social Network, Inglorious Basterds, Inception.

    I would also like to mention that I believe there is nothing wrong with minor tweaks during filming or close to the start of filming, but a major rewrite during principal photography and in the couple of months leading up to the start of filming should be a big no-no.

    EDIT: Obviously, I am talking about mainstream movies. Terrence Malick or David Lynch doesn't even need any screenplay to make a great film.

    Many great and now classic films have had major re-writes during production, for example, just off the top of my head, Casablanca or The Big Sleep, Apocalypse Now, Jaws etc. Other films have had major re-shoots - Back To the Future actually re-cast their lead actor after 2 weeks shooting - And Mendes was unhappy with the more broad comic tone the studio was after for American Beauty and after a week of shooting Mendes bravely - remember he was a first time feature film director - went to the studio and requested they let him re-shoot everything and let him adjust the tone. His wishes, despite the added costs and time, were granted. The finished result won Best Film Oscar.

    The point I'm making is that films strive to be the best they can be, no one ever sets out to make a sub-standard film on purpose, so everyone works hard to get the best results. Big tent-pole release movies like Bond have added pressures, not just high audience expectation, but fixed release dates and huge amounts of money at stake, so to say making script changes - more than minor changes - in actual production should be, as you say, a "big no-no", is quite frankly pretty naive. All that matters is the final result. That's what people remember.

    This. Not to mention Social Network, Bastards and Inception arent coming off the backs of a 50 year old franchise with tons of already used and trampled ideas, theyre Oscar bait flicks and Bond is pure action cheese meant as escapism and not to make a point, make you think or view your fellow man or history of man. Those flicks are on an entirely different artistic level. Its like comparing Die Hard to Titanic.
  • Posts: 1,490
    Er? Die Hard to Titanic? You are completely missing the point of what I said.

    Anyway, back to Spectre. From what I'm picking up on this forum it seems the re-writes have been very positive and will lead to a better film. Now what can be wrong with that?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited December 2014 Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Are your "tastes" in movies so refined you have to put people down?

    Short answer: yes.
    Murdock wrote: »
    Why is my opinion ridiculous? Because I don't eat up everything Nolan puts out?

    Typical straw man argument... I certainly don't eat up everything Nolan directs. For example I find The Dark Knight vastly overrated. No, your opinion is ridiculous because you claim that The Avengers is less "style over substance" than Inception or Interstellar. The only thing The Avengers has is style.

    Nolan doesn't come anywhere close to being as great as someone like David Lynch, but he is easily one of the best (if not THE best) director of big budget movies nowadays and directors like Joss Whedon are a joke compared to him.

    Well aren't you full of yourself Mr. Condescending. I don't dislike all Nolan's films. I enjoy Batman Begins but that's about it. The Avengers is an action ensemble piece directed at fans of the material with realistic dialogue and not some pseudo sophisticated expository speeches Nolan cooks up

    It's not a "strawman" argument. I answered your questions and asked you some in return. That's how a discussion works. That review I put up was more than hater backlash. It addressed real criticisms over Nolan's film style. I don't like his formula. Most of his movies don't do it for me. And I don't think he's good enough for Bond.
  • Posts: 4,619
    aaron819 wrote: »
    I think we should set up a forum just for @PanchitoPistoles, because of his craziness about Spectre!!

    Calm down and take a deep breath. Why do you need to become agitated when people discuss the development of the movie in detail? Do you hate posts longer than two sentences or what?
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 187
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Er? Die Hard to Titanic? You are completely missing the point of what I said.

    Anyway, back to Spectre. From what I'm picking up on this forum it seems the re-writes have been very positive and will lead to a better film. Now what can be wrong with that?

    lol Sorry to have confused you, I was using those 3 examples to make a point. That point being, Bastards and the other 2 films had no strict schedule, literally years of time devoted to forming ideas, crafting drafts, putting a script together. Bond has what, a year tops, maybe less depending on when they begin? They are almost always written under the harsh conditions and its relatively nothing new considering how many ideas are probably scratched and rewrites are needed in that timeframe probably since Diamonds Are Forever, I'd imagine, when they started drifting from the source film by film.

    Action films, particularly franchises, are an entirely different beast compared to the creative proccess of standalone flcks. Films involving bi or tri annual franchises are a tough business.
  • Posts: 4,619
    @Murdock That "review" you put up was written by a moron who gave 5 stars to the first Hobbit movie on that same website. How on Earth can you take that guy seriously?
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 2,115
    Still reading notes in this thread, but wanted to point out we can trace pre-production of early Bond movies. You have to travel to Iowa City, Iowa, where Richard Maibaum's papers are stored.

    Adrian Turner, a British film critic and historian, did exactly that for his 1998 book Adrian Turner on Goldfinger. Topics are organized alphabetically. Under "S" is Screenplay and Turner provides a lengthy summary of the various Goldfinger scripts by Maibaum and Paul Dehn.

    Also, quotes from various Maibaum memos are spread throughout the book.
  • edited December 2014 Posts: 267
    Murdock wrote: »
    Nolan's not a very good writer. His scripts are too big and everybody talks in speeches. Nobody normal talks like that. I don't want his mits anywhere near Bond.

    You don't like him, fine. Have you ever wondered why most casual moviegoers and film critics all agree that he is currently one of the best writers and one of the best directors of big budget cinema?

    Doesn't mean he's the best idea for a Bond film. For a Bond film there's a lot of "rules" you have to follow and I don't think Nolan would be very happy sticking to those rules.
  • Posts: 260

    Short answer: yes.


    LOL.

    Dude... Please stop...
Sign In or Register to comment.